Tweaks and Leaks: An experiment with truth

[a version of the following was published here: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/122854/tweaks-leaks-experiment-truth.html ]

Bringing out the “ghee” by tweaking one’s finger is an age-old Indian way to assuage difficult situations. It is apparent that it is indeed used in non-Indian pastures too. With respect to the recent hullaballoo in arresting Julian Assange, the owner of wikileaks, tweaking the finger (or the “reasons” to catch him, if one can) is the only recourse when faced with the impunity of not being offered the customary “ghee” as part of being the rulers of an established status-quo. Indeed, wikileaks among its other endeavours, had been raging a cyber jihad against the equally revered and hated nation of the world—the United States—through strategically timed, leaking of “truth” and thereby debunking the nation’s credibility across eyes that behold. The U.S had to do something—albeit that “something” was shrouded in legal and technological confusion as to what could be done—since Assange had been claiming it as “investigative journalism”, and wikileaks has fought and won over 100 legal challenges since its inception in 2006. Finally, the god of lady luck smiled on hurt parties like the U.S., as Julian Assange was recently arrested, but on charges of various sexual offences, which, he claims to be not true; quite, in the same vein the U.S and U.K. organizations have been claiming news leaked by wikileaks as not true.

Consequently, Assange’s arrest has brought off on the forefront not only a cyber gang war, as visa and mastercard websites were hacked in supposed retaliatory reactions, and the editorial in the Washington Times by Jeffrey T. Kuhner saying that Assange should be treated “the same way as other high-value terrorist targets”, but also the question as to who should control the representation of “truth” and how. Should everybody know everything? Or should news/facts/truth be privy to powers that be? As a recent nationally renowned journalist claimed, it is within every media person’s powers what should transpire and what should not, the overlap of moralistic prescriptions and dominant preferences on “truth” notwithstanding. Post-Matrix (the movie) and post postmodernism, it is common understanding that there is no single truth. Truth is subjective and dependent on agreement by two or more individuals on the experience and interpretation of a particular event, leading to the formation of an emergent consensus on reality. Assange sought to strike on this consensus, and while his arrest on irrelevant (that is, irrelevant to the “real” grounds on which he was most sought after) grounds has led to media and mass speculation on what would happen next, whether one could continue to receive the forbidden pleasures of having sneak peeks in the green rooms of the major powers, the audacious question meekly raised is: whether the U.S. or hierarchical superlative powers could really do anything to silence voices against it?

To revisit this question from a Foucauldian perspective, through punishment, a disciplining process is attempted. It is expected that this disciplining attempt would create docile entities—that would work in unison in economics, warfare, politics and the media—and be subjected to continuous surveillance, recordings and notes for subsequent internalization of the principles of the status-quo. Jeremy Bentham might be dead, but his Panopticon design of the prison, framed in 1785, still continues in latent form, as lesser hapless mortals are watched by bigger mortals without being informed of the process. Is it then really surprising and illegitimate, given the circumstances, that bigger powers would retaliate when the gaze is reversed/directed at them?

Despite the arrest of Assange, wikileaks declares that it will be back and continue to show the true facts. After all, facts exist independent of human perception and/or experience. Whether a statement is true or not, is largely dependent on certain other facts presented as supplementary evidence. Holding the control and access to those evidence adds on to one’s position in any hierarchy, local, international or informational. To clarify, supervisors hold facts/truth from their subordinates in the office, adults contain truth from children, friends keep secrets too, and percolating these small, restricted scenarios of taking liberties to the broader level, holding down of facts or truth become a classic and fascinating display of power struggles. Changes in regime and powers happen not when one power is overthrown but as Vilfredo Pareto said, one elite takes upon the other. We’d like to believe that the media would behave like the famous character in the cult movie “Gunda” who always professed that he keeps everything open (“mera naam hain bulla, main rakhta hoon sab khulla”). However, the role of the common man is but to accept such transformations in power struggles without much ado, as supporters or followers of one elite or the other and less as initiators or reactors to the proceedings.

They used to say, whoever goes to Lanka, becomes Ravana. As for finding the truth behind things in general, in this such-called age of information, the fun has just begun. Welcome to reality as it continues to ruin our lives, as Calvin says and get more bites, sorry bytes out of it.

Balance Forward

They say habits are ingrained. I'd say some are borne out of relationships and stay with their "once upon a time" mark-ups even though those relationships might not be there; or might have changed their form and content. And these habits get so much under your skin that one would wonder whatever happened to the processes of their genesis.....yadi yadi... "whatever happened to us?" etc.
As I was engaged in one of such habits, I was listing them.....and they surprized me in their range though I guess I could be spared of any embarrassment as regards their numerical nominality. Here they are:

1. Certain food habits, such as having certain food, in certain ways, in certain parts of the day; though I had the idea that I was fairly open-minded as far as having food in whichever form and at whichever time of the day was concerned.

2. Having throat lozenges (Halls)

3. Music preferences (okay, a tad little bit)

4. writing in dots and ending sentences with dots, with full knowledge of how ungrammatical they are

5. This one concerns the activity I was engaged in as mentioned in the beginning. This I've been doing, even after 31 years.

Sleep in foetal position, in perfect foetal position that is, even with my feet crossed.

Considering all relationships are based on some form of tacit or stated understanding of exchanges, we all probably carry our own unique balances forward while checking off the option of reviving some of them.

Life, is good. Ain't it?

Measuring up Multiculturalism: just a pinch

[A version of this entry is published here: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/117822/measuring-up-multiculturalism-yardsticks-may.html]

“We are all multiculturalists now”, Nathan Glazer, the well-known social scientist from Harvard had called attention to the way of life in 1997 when Americans of all ages, shapes, sizes, colour, political orientation, sexual orientation, gender, race and religion of the contemporary post-civil-rights era subscribed. This society spoke the language of tolerance, and respected the mosaic in diversity. Now in 2010, in both of our capacities as active and passive observers of social reality, we have the options of weighing in declarations of multiculturalism being a workable policy or being an “utter failure” as asserted by Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. Indeed, opinions on multiculturalism range from being the proverbial sweet carrot waved to attract and assuage immigrant settlement in a new country, to the attempt of putting a square peg on a round hole. Whether or not we are all multiculturalists, the concerned philosophy affects us all beyond having relatives living in Australia, U.S.A., Canada or Germany, in our existences of being citizens in a multi-ethnic country where ethnic diversity is not a recent consequence of immigration.

Stepping aside from debates on whether multiculturalism is an unachievable dream, an empty promise, an assimilationist garb or a cultural commitment to ethnic groups, it remains so that multiculturalism is a demographic reality. Demographic multiculturalism is and will be on the increase in the global north owing to extraordinary regionalization of population growth and global fertility, leading to an unequal and irreversible migration gradient. Based on this actuality, quite understandably, multiculturalism as an official policy promises an atmosphere to retain cultural integrity and heritage for migrating ethnic groups. However, the congruence between policy and practice does not align perfectly as evident in empirical evidences the world over, owing to willingness to accept demographic multiculturalism but dismiss right-based multiculturalism to ethnic groups. The age old debates of melting pot and assimilation, of recognizing and encouraging diversity that exists as an antithesis to integration lies at the heart of multicultural debate which surface in situations of banning the hijab in France, granting of minimalist rights to skilled workers in Singapore or even the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam or bombings in trains and buses in London. As onlookers, populist views question the granting of equal and civil rights to new immigrant groups who fail to respect the “laws” of the new country, who do not follow the “original” cultural practices; in addition, these immigrants are found to engage in disruptive and non-integrative practices, many of which are derived from their ethnic lineage that stand in stark contrast to the “basic” culture of a country. A natural question follows: how far should one tolerate difference from other cultures that threaten to move cornerstones of preceding settlers? Moreover, how much multiculturalism is enough to maintain sustainable cohesiveness in contemporary societies? Answering these questions somewhat, a convenient and workable form of multiculturalism is entails active invocation of “tolerance”; even then, in spite of granting cultural rights to maintain one’s lineage, the multicultural festival manages to marginalize ethnic groups and turn them into exotic artefacts to be brought out and made visible when the time and demand is right.

Assimilation, rationally speaking, is offered under bated breath as the veritable survival strategy to escape being branded into specific identity markers and to blend in with the “mainstream”. This involves making simple choices in cuisine such as opting for pasta over curry, meatballs over falafel, making certain choices in dressing like leaving the turban, the hijab and salwars behind, not being overtly religious except when fashionably celebrating Christmas in the contemporary social climate and being able to pronounce in perfect accents, words such as “Wednesday” or “homogenous”. Put another way, any such showcasing that can keep people (migrants or immigrants) off from “blending” with the mainstream/dominant ethnic group is encouraged to be shed off. The tacit assumption remains that multiple cultures can exist together only when lineages intermesh, with differences having the least chance of being perceived in antagonistic terms. Homogeneity amidst heterogeneity or unity amidst diversity remains the covert agenda target of any society, multicultural or not. As they say, “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”; when in Bombay, do as you are told; when in Bangalore, be who you are but respect the locals who are tolerating you.

Worth noting is the fact that the use of tolerance as an idea points to a sense of a privileged position, a sense of superiority complex, a sense of hierarchical content, that allows others to exist, in fitting with the existing status quo. Moreover, the notion of tolerance comes hand in hand with a defined sense of boundary within which new entrants to a community or nation are accepted. As a Ph.D student staying in Canada and researching on immigrants and Canadian identity, I’ve often found that for “mainstream”/dominant Canadians (of British lineage) their sense of Canadian identity is often admittedly derived from the colonial history of ruling the world. This enables a mainstream/dominant Canadian to draw upon a common reference point and justifying the age-old sense of authority when perceiving, defining and categorizing people from different ethnic groups. The question of assimilation, tolerance and multiculturalism, thankfully or not, did not arise in case of colonizing nations when they captured different nations or when they came to settle in the lands of the aboriginals.

Logically speaking, there is a degree to which individuals could assimilate into a new culture. For example, immigrants coming from countries that are similar in linguistic, economic, political, cultural and religious aspects are found to integrate and adapt to the “host” society easier than those who are considerably different linguistically, religiously, culturally, politically and economically. An immigrant coming from England or France would assimilate, adapt and integrate better with the dominant Canadian society than those coming from China or India. Several immigrants to Canada have adapted and assimilated to an overarchical western notion of Canadian identity in terms of customs, views and perspective and have emulated western ways of socializing, dressing, speaking and the like, based on their interaction with mainstream/dominant Canadians. Simultaneously, they have also maintained another exclusive, “ethnic” life and navigating within these dual worlds complete their Canadian identity of being multicultural.

The crux of the matter remains that living with diversity does not necessarily entail a more accommodative or accepting standpoint. Whether multiculturalism remains a successful social experiment or a failure is dependent on whether we consider terms such as “tolerance”, “host society” and “original culture” acceptable and find them okay to live with or assimilate and bury them altogether in our quest for cushioned existence. As they say, there ain’t no easy way out.

....dom dom diga diga

The title belongs to a song that almost belongs to my grandparent's era. Since I was small, I've seen this phrase to be used to express something to do with freedom, its resemblance with the suffix notwithstanding. Indeed, freedom is expressed in so many terms and expressions that one cannot but be thankful to the concept of "freedom of expression" albeit all the deterministic forces working their tentacles around it.

This morning, as I looked above the blue sky interspersed with yellow translucent leaves and let out oval smoke rings, I thought I was free. It was Sunday morning, 8:30 a.m. and I was up though nobody had told me to get up so early, though nobody had refrained from doing so, though nobody expected me to, though nobody had anything set aside for me to do, and I had the freedom to leave my phone with the ringer off and be a recluse or be in Regina (though I wish I could be in Riviera). Determinism like the bracketed portion always have their way of sneaking up on us, but I felt relatively free, of assorted levels of bonding and their associated commitments.

And then, I remembered......I mean....letting Manoj Kumar rest for a while, I remembered King Khan showing us what freedom should entail: drinking Pepsi and thereby practising "freedom to be"/"azaadi di ki". Though not hanging on to that thought but predicated on a discussion of the October Revolution, a friend was telling me how the freedom to just do anything and be a consumer of anything was rather worrisome to him; and quite akin to the Marxian chain of thought, he opined or rather, expected that this trend of exhibiting freedom would go on and ascend before bringing everything down. He hoped there would be a rebuilding (of values, ethics, modes of living and principles).

Yet, I wonder whether we the people, in our piecemeal existences do really engage upon freedom. Whether the choice to dress in accordance with what the "market" says, watch certain movies based on what the "market" directs, drink certain potions based on what the market supplies and such other "choices" are not our escape routes from freedom through automated channels of compliances. It relieves us to decide and act on our choices given, and take the path of least resistance to acceptance by our social milieu. So we don't feel alone; but feel that we can do (and possess the powers to do) what we want, and that feeling suffices for the moment rather than the trial and tribulations of it.

And then, there's always tomorrow.

Do the memories lose their meaning?

I was trying to prepare for a potential "behavioural" interview and realized that 5 years is a long time in erasing minute details of what you did and how. Not the bigger details are erased, like the name of a research project or how I or others went about it; but I couldn't remember how much each segment or a project was developed by me each day and such other things; whether I had faced little problems along the way. Somehow, each of those research projects in my years of working as an RA is striking me as a big jumbled up mass. Probably I'm aging or probably they didn't matter to me.... as that's how memories are supposed to be stowed in our brains. We don't usually remember what happened each day in the past year but we do remember the random moment 5 years back when we liked some brilliant bag of a random co-passenger or that striking face in the escalator or how we missed someone on hearing a certain song or how we were late for a certain day at work or even how we felt the moon was walking with us when we used to walk as kids and look up in the sky and so on....

And then, I came across these:




Pictures that brought back my whole childhood....pictures that provide warmth and memories of almost living in our little ambiotic sacs; when it was okay to stare at these while flipping through the newspaper or "Anandamela" or while it was definitely not okay to gaze at them in our restricted sessions of "Anandalok", "Stardust" and the likes. The "advertise" before the Saturday or Sunday movies when TV equalized Doordarshan were always preferred palatable pleasures, especially when one had to start studying for classwork due on Mondays; in addition to them, however, these print media advertisements were always gazed upon starry eyed.....on the stars in them.

And even then, I had lost, on my memories that is, the sooo-privileged-to-be-so dewy eyed Anuradha Patel, of being associated with anything else other than "Mera kuchh samaan" or ...Ijazaat....or her being the granddaughter of Ashok Kumar. But here she is, making me wonder how did I even forget that this toothpaste existed once upon a time? Well, to paraphrase Nietzsche (with all the due apologies to be used in such profane situations like this)...some things do not come to mind when we want them; but, when they do.....they touch us with their irrevocable molten comforting powers.
Though, I guess.....none of us could forget, arguably, our first childhood crush, about whom nothing else was known except him coming from the illustrious filmy family panning over generations. The picture on left is not only Karan Kapoor, but worn out literatures where glamour meant Bombay dyeing or Grasim and definitely Dinesh with Sunny Gavaskar rooting for it or even.....Lakme nailpolishes....hugely predicated by the way Sonu Walia had her fingers playing with the telephone chord those days.

And of course, Vinod Khanna had to look glamourous, a matt finished green soap notwithstanding:

Stars had it then, eh? And some stars had it quite big for posterity to wonder how they had it.....yeh bhi koi baat hain?

The star on left was barely a star as far as I could remember..... in the 1980s I mean. Okay....so yeah..."Hero" was a hit, as was the tune. But to see so many sponsorships heaped on this person makes me say in Malvolio fashion...."..some have greatness thrust upon them". Evidences follow:

I remember the "Savage" blade and the 7'o' clock and the Wilkinson. But Jackie Shroff as a model for an aftershave called "savage" or being too macho to smoke charminar was lost on me.....probably with a good reason.........which again, is probably too subconscious or too politically incorrect to spill. I guess sometimes we smooth out on the edges of our memories for valid reasons, without being too patterned in the process.

As "Celine" once said, "Memories are wonderful things, if you don't have to deal with the past." A dear friend of mine always used to get a little rough whenever I would be nostalgic; get nostalgic while I'm miles away from home. Because memories are not supposed to bring anything to you....except the past, which is what you can't have. Or also because, they lose their meaning...."when you think of love, as something new..."

I wonder though....I haven't been able to forget a single person with whom I've interacted, or communicated for a day or two, or even for a minute or two. For better or for worse. Probably I've forgotten their names....their last names, but not them. And these pictures bring them back to me....from the dead...from the past. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing....I, being a 31 year old, do not care anymore. For me, they create a rustle of moments so precious that I can hardly let go. One can kiss them, but can't say goodbye....at least, not me.

The sociology of blogging

Since it is my blog's birthday, (it's 3 years), I thought I would take one hard look at the craft, without getting crafty. I find I have half of the humour that used to be in the beginning. I have lost time to write more. But dear folks, I haven't lost on the critical introspection. I asked myself, why do I blog? Why do we blog? Why do you blog? And, why doesn't one blog?

I was telling a friend of mine that someday I would write on the Sociology of blogging. If there could be that proverbial sociology of hilsa fish, this should be cakewalk. And what better way to do this cakewalk on the birthday of this blog? (Well almost, I'm just a day late....)

Based on cursory glances here and there, and years of lit review, I take off from from an old and golden adage.


First, Some are born bloggers. Like the kid who would write in the last page of the Maths exercise copy of how he hates studying; like the student who would get inspired from Anne Frank's diary and start writing her own (it's more likely that this would be done by a "she" than "he"....take it from me), and even certain persons in facebook or orkut who write one big ass paragraph everyday on how life should be and make sure you notice, comment and do everything possible but dislike that. The innate sense of blogging make these people perform with very little resources as they provide an allay for their expressions. These blogs are sustainable blogs though might not be environment-friendly, since they exclude the alleviation of the reader's mind by defying the laws of social acceptance. One such legendary example is here.

Some achieve blogging through certain rites-de-passage of life, such as attaining motherhood (mommy blogs!), being a superstar (Aamir Khan and Amitabh Bachchan), getting married (wedding blogs for hapless posterity), discovering one's sexual identity, being the research supervisor (yes, there are "how-to" and "don't do" blogs written by the species), sulking blogs that are written after break-ups or other such angst corners.

And, ladies and gentlemen, some have greatness thrust upon them. Like greatbong. Like bongmom. If they don't blog, where would we be? One gigantic quality in them: they blog passionately and are dispassionate on the comments. We, the lesser mortals, bruise easily. Therein, is also a piece of their greatness.

Therefore, Be not afraid of blogging. Grey areas are there not only inside and outside of your head but almost everywhere you are afraid of committing. They are cushions in the world of prickly heat; You or I might not want to belong to any of the above categories, but we can always soothe ourselves through blogging categorically, regardless, and continue feeling that we can't be categorized.And when you need a little abstraction in life, when you need to get away from the gore and grit, you can write anything you fancy and achieve surreal bliss by finally applying the suggested label of "scooters" by blogspot. Heck, somebody's gotta blog about scooters, the primary suggestion by this webhosting redeemer, isn't it?


Consequently, there is a higher chance that you will get into the rhythmic flow, like for example, keep on writing on shooters, hooters, losers, messers and so on. Ever wondered why the "XYZ and messers" named shops are no longer seen? And remember how you used to have the cotton-candy from the seller stationed outside of it?

It's that easy.

Life's Like that

There used to be a feature like this in the Readers Digest which we used to subscribe to, in my childhood.

So, here's one anecdote, just like that.

Overheard in the gym, a couple of days back:

Non-smart, giggly guy asking the toned, lean, muscular guy: So.... you exercise regularly, yeah?

Muscular guy: Yeah...

Non-smart, giggly guy: So when you don't exercise, you gain fat, yeah?

Muscular guy: Yeah...

Non-smart, giggly guy: So when guys gain fat, they gain it as a spare tyre, yeah?

Muscular Guy: Yeah....

Non-smart, giggly guy: and when girls gain fat, they do it in their bottom, yeah?

Muscular Guy: Yeah,........... hopefully.