On religion and superstition

I just came across a two posts talking about religion and superstition. More specifically, they talked about the rituals a woman is forced to go through when she has her period. A third, radically different post, caught my attention for the boldness with which it put forward a not-so-fashionable-any-more point of view. The first two argue that since periods are a natural part of a woman's life, there must be no difference in her behaviour or treatment during those dreaded days. The third says she actually enjoys being treated like a queen and getting the men to do all the work. These represent diametrically opposed viewpoints. I would prefer to take a middle ground.

First things first, I agree that a woman must be treated with the same dignity whether she has her period or not. I also agree that seclusion or segregation is ridiculous and must not be practised anywhere. Where I beg to differ is on the religion issue. Each of us has a certain belief, or lack of it, in God. If I believe that God's abode will be defiled by my going there, who the hell are you to force me to go? We are talking about something very basic: the right to freedom of expression. I believe in something. And nobody has any business questioning it. My mother would not let me anywhere near her Puja Room during those three days. So be it. Why should I enter it just to make a point? If you really believe in God, you would worship him, even in toilet if need be. How does your entering a puja room change anything? Your mother, or anyone else for that matter, has a right to believe what they want. Just who are these so-called "educated" and "enlightened" women to call my belief bullshit?

Let's get one thing straight. Education means accepting another's beliefs with an open mind. It means being willing to accept that they are entitled to their opinion without having to justify it to you. Why is my belief that I am too impure to enter a temple during those three days being judged on? Imp's Mom is being extremely uncharitable, not to mention judgemental when she says,

"Just when I had thought that every woman hated these stupid traditions and will not allow it to continue with her daughter, this lady made me sit up. Here is the proof that an educated modern woman enjoys and find no wrong with the isolation."

I am sorry Imp's Mom, but you have no business telling me I am behaving in a manner unbecoming of an "educated" woman. What I believe is my business. As long I don't force my beliefs down your throat, you shouldn't be complaining. Also, a note to those who complain about their mothers. As long as you live with your parents, in their house, it is their wish that matters. If it is so important to enter the puja room on those days, you are free to do so in your own house, where nobody has any right to stop you. You may dislike the restrictions people, and society place on you. But, remember you are as bad as them the minute you start being judgemental about things as sensitive and personal as religion. Venting one's feelings is one thing. Launching personal attacks against X, Y or Z for the views they hold is quite another. It's time "educated" and "modern " women learnt the real meaning of the word "modern".

On children and marriage

Here is an excellent post by Nita on the impact children have on a marriage and if they can actually contribute to happiness in a marriage. It is an excellently researched and well-written article and explores different facets of the husband-wife relationship. Personally, I think children play and important role in marriages. As Nita says, much depends on the personal preference of the couple.

But in India, couples face a different kind of problem altogether. First, they really do not have a choice in having children. They are expected to have one, at least within a couple of years of the wedding. Those who don't have kids, either by choice or otherwise are often stigmatised and humiliated by family, friends and by society at large. It is true that things are changing. But, not to the extent that society quietly accepts and embraces those who choose not to procreate. Even in urban centres, the pressure on a married couple to have children is quite high.

If a couple does have children to shut society up, they end up being resentful of the situation they are in. Such an attitude helps nobody: not the children, who end up feeling unwanted and neglected, not the couple who suffocate within the confines that society has imposed on them, and not the family, which, by extension suffers too. As Nita points out, several surveys have argued that children lead to a decline in marital happiness, but "happiness" is an emotion that cannot be measured on a scale of one to ten.

Children undoubtedly influence marital happiness. But what is more important for a successful marriage, or indeed, any relationship, is the willingness to listen. I find that the better I communicate with people around me, the better my relationship with them becomes. If that is true of friendship or of professional relationships, it should be equally true of marriages. As long as the couple is willing to sit down and sort out any issues they might have, a happy marriage is impossible. Other, equally important factors such as fidelity, compatibility and understanding are essential ingredients for a happy marriage.

To sum up, a happy marriage can only happen if both partners are willing to make it work. Resentment and frustration are the main enemies of a happy marriage. Children will only make an already happy marriage even happier, just as they will worsen the quality of life in an already-bad marriage.

Cheerleaders and the moral police...and Barkha Dutt too

Check out this piece by Barkha Dutt in the Hindustan Times. Frankly, I have never liked Dutt, nor do I find her writing logical and coherent. But, this piece exceeds all expectations. dutt makes a complete fool of herself unlike anytime in the past. Confused is quite justified in asking what exactly the point is. Seriously, what was she thinking. I don't understand why we need bikini-clad cheerleaders to make cricket viewing more fun, but that's their job. They have been hired by the team bosses (read Vijay Mallya and Co) to do that job. What is the point in venting our ire on them. If Dutt had the guts, she must have directed her irritation against Mallya. Her comment that white cheerleaders are trashy.

"But even if I think that the cheerleaders are (there’s no polite way to say this) essentially white trash, I find the attempt by sundry politicians to ban them — or dress them up in clothes that cover their knees — farcical and indefensible."

I find that disgusting, especially since it comes from Dutt, who fancies herself to be a champion of liberal causes. White trash? What the @$%?? These girls show a lot of skin. True. They are all white. True. But, does that justify Dutt casting aspersions on their character or taking the moral high ground? I think not. She likes to call herself liberal. But, her most recent article seems to demonstrate otherwise. To me, she is simply taking refuge under the "liberal" tag to say exactly the same things as the moral police, spineless politicians and religious fundamentalists.

Legal System and criticism

Read this excellent op-ed in The Hindu by V R Krishna Iyer. I am glad someone is questioning what the Supreme Court says. In a recent pronouncement, the Chief Justice of India said that judges were "constitutional authorities" and not public servants, and therefore not covered by the Right to Information Act. In an excellent retort, Iyer explains that the difference between "constitutional authority" and public servant is merely semantic. He argues that constitutional authorities are, in fact, a higher category of pubic servant and are therefore more accountable for their actions. If what Iyer says is true, then why is criticism of the courts or legal procedure considered contempt of court? Must the Supreme Court not be subject to the very laws they seek to uphold? As Iyer puts it,

"The Indian judiciary must accept Frankfurter, that frank and superlative U.S. Judge who wrote: “Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions."

In a recent order on the defamation cases against Tamil actress Khushboo, the Madras High Court refused to dismiss the 29 cases against her on the grounds that she had expressed not-so-flattering opinions against the judiciary, and that she had no reason to be aggrieved. Excuse me, but I thought I lived in a democracy? A person does not enjoy her fundamental right to constitutional remedy because she dared to say something against the courts, which are responsible for providing that remedy? In a democracy, I have an inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression. Nobody can take that away from me. The courts were, until now, the only neutral and non-partisan forum for justice. If the courts put themselves above the law, how can we trust them to protect the rights of normal people like you and me?

To its credit, India's legal system has managed to remain free from external influences for over 60 years. We cannot afford to let that change. Judges will only be more respected if they agree to subject themselves to the laws they are appointed to uphold. Judges are subject to law, not above it.

IIT and the obsession with exclusivity

I came across this article, and this one too, by Prof. P V Indiresan, in the Business Line. One talks about how exclusivity is the USP of the IITs and the other argues that India does not really need any more IITs. I might have been convinced if the esteemed professor had not made such a mess of his arguments. Initially, I wanted to simply rant. Now, I prefer countering each of his arguments with my own counter-arguments. In the meantime, check out this excellent retort by Abi. Ok, on to the real arguments the professor puts forward.

His first argument is that India does not need engineers of the quality the IIT produces simply because the economy expects them to sell soap or analyse stock market trends rather than apply the complex theories of thermodynamics they learn at IIT. He claims that

"Many youngsters struggle to get into an IIT not because they love the knowledge they can obtain there but because IIT education offers entry to lucrative careers. (...) Suppose, we have a similar business school which offers an MBA programme directly the way National Law Schools do. In that case, will not our brightest opt for a direct MBA and discard IIT?"

What the hell? So, the only kind of knowledge that recruiters value are those that an MBA degree can offer? I am sorry, but I don't agree. Companies and organisations need good mechanical, electrical and electronic engineers just as much as they need good managers. IIT graduates may not pursue engineering in India. They may choose to do an MBA after their B. Tech from IIT. But, that's their personal choice. What I do with the degree I obtain is my problem. That doesn't mean that the government should stop offering those degrees. I have a degree in History, another in International Affairs. I am not using either at the moment. Does that mean that I forget what I studied? Or that what I studied is "thrown into the dustbin" as Prof. Indiresan claims? I think not.

His second argument is equally flawed.

"If high incomes can be earned without a university degree, people will mostly bypass college education. I know of the proprietor of a famous chain store in the old days of Madras who refused to let his sons join college for the fear college education will make them too arrogant to be humble before customers."

Frankly, that's ridiculous. In addition, his claim that most students play truant and miss classes at the slightest excuse because all they want from college is a degree that will help them be short-listed to superior jobs, is simply unacceptable. He is a teacher. One with several years' experience. Must he necessarily be so insulting and demeaning of students? Does he imply that students will only join the IITs for their brand value, and nothing else? Those of you who have studied in one of the IITs, please tell me. Can you actually get an IIT degree without putting in some serious effort into your studies? Isn't that the real difference between IIT and XYZ College? Any new IITs will necessarily have those qualities right?

"Thus, the stark fact is people are not interested in higher education but in good income, better security. If these could be ensured immediately after high school education, few will bother to attend college. Further, most jobs need skill training rather than academic scholarship. If we were to look at history, great economic empires were built not by university scholars but by skilled apprentices. Few of the richest — Gates, Buffet, Mittal, Agarwal — people in the world today will attribute their success to university education."

I am sorry professor, but I think you have got the whole issue wrong. There can be no such thing as over-expansion of university education. While it is true that primary education must be strengthened to bring it on par with university education in India, to say that university enrolment must not be expanded is stupid and short-sighted. We need qualified engineers, just like we need qualified doctors, lawyers or accountants. To say that engineering education need not be expanded or reformed simply because the market wants good managers is like saying we must not grow wheat because the market demands rice. Stupid. Period.

The second article dazzles the poor reader with lots of scientific theorems, but behind all of it lies a single flawed logic. Because the USP of the IITs is exclusivity, there must necessarily be a shortage. If the shortage is filled, there will not be any difference between an IIT and a street-corner polytechnic. There again Prof. Indiresan seems to have thrown logic out of the window. The presence of half a dozen good B-schools in the US do not diminish the brand value of Harvard. Similarly, as Abi points out, the presence of multiple campuses of the University of California does not make UCLA any less sought-after. So professor, the lay person might be impressed with all the jargon you insist on using in your articles, but beyond the glitz, it seems to me to be a truckload of bad arguments, flawed logic and downright short-sightedness.

The IPL, cheerleaders and cricketing sense

I was pointed to an exemplary article on Washington Post, by a post by Amit Varma. Before you think I am beginning to go crazy, let me explain. The article is exemplary in showcasing American ignorance to the world. What else can I say? Sample this.

"In many corners of the world, cricket is seen as slow-moving and stodgy, a vestige of British colonialism that is a cross between baseball and napping."

Excuse me, but cricket is truly an international game. We don't conduct an inter-club tournament and call it the World Series. A cross between baseball and napping? WTF? Also, we don't create some vague game and insist on calling it football when, to the rest of the world, football is what the Americans choose to call soccer. Ok, forget the language issue, we happen to be a billion in number. And India obsessively follows the fortunes of their national cricket team through the year. One loss, and the nation is depressed. One victory, and it's euphoric. We don't really need a bunch on American cheerleaders to bring people back to the game as Wax claims. They never went anywhere in the first place. And yes, Wax also says this of cricket.

"The league is also trying to win fans over to a shortened format of the game that is formally called "Twenty20," known colloquially as "cricket on crack." It condenses nearly a week of match play into three hours, with shorter "overs," which are similar to innings in baseball."

We shortened overs? When did that happen exactly? And cricket on crack? Are you sure she was not smoking pot when she wrote this? Unless I turned into a frog overnight, cricket's shorter version was originally the limited overs one-day internationals introduced in the mid-1970s. What the heck is all this shit about condensing a week of play into three hours? It's not a sudden development is it? The Boxing Day test at the MCG in Melbourne did not have any cheerleaders. It lasted five whole days. And yet, it was filled to capacity every single day, and no thanks to skin-showing American cheerleaders. It was cricket at its pure and simple best.

Wax's ignorance is not limited to cricket alone. It seems as though she was stoned throughout her trip to India. Consider this.

"The American women's presence has caused a stir across India, a conservative, Hindu-dominated country where even at the beach, women often shun swimwear in favor of saris, which are made of at least six yards of billowing fabric that covers everything from the neckline to the ankles, sometimes leaving the belly exposed. It's a country where the top female tennis star, Sania Mirza, who is Muslim, is often criticized for wearing short skirts on the court. Some TV pundits pointed out that the Redskins cheerleaders are showing more skin on the cricket pitch than most Indian men will see before marriage."

The sari is six yards of billowing fabric that covers everything from neck to ankle? Ask any Indian man. He will tell you that the sari can reveal more than it hides, if the lady in question chooses to reveal it. It is one of the sexiest garments a woman can wear, albeit difficult for the inexperienced. Also, criticism of Sania Mirza is done by a bunch of mostly jobless, religious fundamentalists who deserve no mention or respect. That's not the opinion of the general public, educated or not.

And these cheerleaders are showing more skin that most men will see before marriage? Are you sure she visited India in 2008? Indian men, and women, are not as prudish as they are made out to be. I have said this before, and I say it again. India is probably the most hypocritical country in the world. Everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality exists, but away from the public eye. This excellent write-up by Nita sums up the issue quite well.

Frankly, I expected a certain quality from the Washington Post. Next time they get someone to write about India, cricket or anything else for that matter, they must at least try to verify facts. I find the article both judgemental and patronising, apart from being belittling of a game many countries in the world passionately follow. I love cricket. So does my boyfriend. And most other Indian men I know. Cheerleaders or no, they will continue to monopolise the TV remote to watch a vague test match between New Zealand and Kenya on a warm Sunday afternoon. The presence, or lack thereof, of some American women showing skin isn't going to make much of a difference.

Education, reservations and reform

Here is a brilliant economic analysis of the reservation policy by Atanu Dey on his blog on development. It is, at first glance, very impressive. He uses economic theory, common sense and impeccable argumentation to prove that reservations are untenable. But, all is not right with his reasoning. I can still spot a few weak links in the arguments, though I am no economist.

First, he states, rather unambiguously, that

"Let’s pause here for a moment to reflect on this: there is no shortage of jobs for qualified candidates. In fact, there is a shortage of qualified people. The shortage arises from the limited supply of seats in educational institutions. That shortage of seats is mandated by the government. The government mandates the shortage and then assigns itself the power to dictate how the rationing of seats will be done. That rationing is motivated primarily by vote-bank politics."

First things first, as someone points out in the comments section, there is no real shortage of seats as mandated by the government. In fact, thousands of seats are left vacant at the end of counselling for engineering admissions every year in the state of Tamil Nadu. According to Wikipedia, Tamil Nadu has 40 universities. This page should provide more information on the state of education in Tamil Nadu. According to the statistics given above, the state has over 1000 colleges providing professional education, in addition to 255 engineering colleges, and 13 medical colleges. Admittedly, Tamil Nadu is one of India's more progressive states, but with good governance and political will, there is no reason why even the BIMARU states must not do as well. Secondly, the question of supply of education is a tricky one. Must all education necessarily lead to a degree? What about companies that recruit graduates of arts and science courses and train them to perform the work expected of them efficiently? One good example would be the TAS, which trains and qualifies young recruits. So, actually speaking, the claim that there is an artificially created shortage of education is a myth.

Dey suggests that higher education must be opened up to private enterprise. I agree. But the point here is, it already is. Sure, there are regulations and processes such as accreditation, but that must remain in order to maintain the quality of education. Then is the emphasis on separating education and testing. I agree again. But, that's what board exams and university exams are all about right? An autonomous arts and science college under the Madras University is free to decide on its syllabus. It's free to do what it pleases during the academic year. At the end of the semester, the students are tested on what they were taught during the semester. The exam process is overseen and endorsed by the University which then delivers the degree. What more can be done? I don't really get the point.

Third, the pricing issue. Privatisation of education and a total absence of control will lead to anarchy. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating the nationalisation of colleges, or complete government control. Far from it. Education is already quite private, to a very large extent. Prices are sky-high. What the government can do is to provide scholarships, grants and stipends to those who deserve it. To contend that private colleges will charge less than government ones because they run their companies better is both ridiculously short-sighted and foolishly optimistic. I am no fan of government control, but this logic simply does not appeal to my brain. Private companies want profit. So will private colleges. In such a situation, how exactly will they agree to offer education at a lower cost than the government?

I can foresee one negative fallout if Dey's idea were implemented. India will go the way of the United States. While colleges in the US are some of the best in the world, it a fact that many who finish grad school spend half their lives trying to repay their educational loans, pay off home mortgages and rid themselves of debt. And in a country like India, which is trying desperately to improve its enrolment in institutes of higher education, this is a really bad idea. A situation like this will lead to a decline in overall education levels and India's already abysmal human development indicators will only fall further.

This said, I do agree when Dey says reservations are a terrible idea. Only, my reasons are entirely different from his. I read in the Times of India yesterday that the cutoff marks at the IIT-JEE had been reduced. While I did not exactly understand the logic behind the marking scheme, I also read that there was to be a 10% relaxation for OBC candidates. Suppose I am an OBC candidate. The normal cutoff mark in an entrance exam is 70%. But, I am given a 10% relaxation because I belong to the OBC category. That means I just need 63% to qualify. So, essentially, the government is telling me this, "Since you are underprivileged, and have been oppressed for centuries, we consider you to be less intelligent than your upper-caste counterparts, and hence incapable of scoring the mandatory 70%. We are being generous and giving you a chance despite your questionable intellect." I am sorry if I am being hyper-sensitive, but I find the attitude both patronising and demeaning. And that's the reason I am so against this practice of norm-relaxation.