All's well that ends well...even if that takes 60 years!

It's a decent verdict and quite balanced. Seldom do we find such instances in legal history wherein we need to consider multiple factors before pronouncing a verdict. In this case; religious sentiments, economic downturn, frivolous turmoils and the perception of people on various elements of faith. Having said that, it is imperative to realize that such a judgment is extraordinary and cannot be put in the bracket of any other normal judgment that is otherwise made. We as onlookers cannot expect each other to strictly view it in terms of legal facts alone, but must give room for other considerations as its the only way that can make us feel content. Yes, its only the matter of content, cause if it wasn't so then none of us would be enraged with what we're getting or what we're not. Its after all peace that needs to prevail, under all circumstances.

There have been few people who have raised their voice against this verdict vociferously. Its possible that they are genuinely disappointed as who knew we'll have a verdict that would come out with the disputed land being sliced into 3parts. For now, its more important to sit back and take into account what would happen if the verdict was in favor of one party alone. Its only that one question, is it worth it? Repercussions of a horrid kind are certainly not any sane person would desire. Therefore any knee-jerk reaction would only result in a horrifying error, impacting many.

Serendipity.

Are you an empirical skeptic?

Do you practise/teach scientific medicine?

Do you belong to the Greek school of Skeptics?

Are these questions beyond the scope of your understanding?

If the answer to the last question is yes, I have another questionnaire..

Do you intend to make a discovery?

You think you can make a certain forecast about the price of crude oil in 2050?

Can you predict when will the next BIG search engine replace Google?

You think I'm bored, munching on some groundnuts, devising new methods to perplex people?

The answer to the last question is, I can do better. Nevertheless that's not what I aim to do now, given that I've no intention of making my small audience smaller.

Most discoveries that have happened in the past have largely happened inadvertently. Alexander Fleming who was researching on a strain of bacteria called staphylococci, was off for a holiday leaving the culture in one of the culture dishes. When he was back, he found the bacteria contaminated with a fungus which prevented the bacteria from further growth. The fungus, what he later called Penicillin lead to the discovery of antibiotics.

Radio astronomists, Penzias and Wilson in 1965 when installing an antenna, were faced with a background noise. They thought it resulted due to the bird poop and cleaned up the excrement. However the noise still persisted, and there came the discovery of microwave radiation. This further led to the speculation of the big bang theory.

The discovery of the pacemaker, the laser and also Charles Darwin's theory of evolution were discoveries by accident. You set out looking for something, and you stumble upon something else. It's called serendipity. It's beautiful when the discovery is favorable and it's fame-giving when the discovery is world changing. This is reflective of what a Greek scholar, Menodotus of Nicomedia from the Empirical school practised. The school treated medicine as an art, and thus viewed empirical methods with skepticism. They would perform experiments in medicine, keeping in mind past experiences and earlier methods employed, but they always kept the avenue for a new discovery open. If there was a possibility of a grave aberration, they didn't feel threatened or stupefied by it, instead it was a like throwing the hat in the ring hoping it would land there.

Nobody sits down making a time table for a discovery. You work on something and then it may chance upon you. It's only the outlook that matters. There are some people who work a whole lifetime and go unnoticed, maybe because the Swedish Academy didn't recognize their work, or they didn't get that lucky moment to claim something big to the world. But there are many others who just weren't looking for it, and suddenly took a walk to their backyard and found something even more fascinating. Either ways it appears that most people who come out with the brightest of ideas are the ones keeping their mind open, looking for basic solutions, going by trials and tribulations and being an empirical skeptic.

I guess being in the SEP field can prove fatal. Somebody Else's Problem, a term I first read in Douglas Adam's book The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, was pretty much how I came to realize why discoveries don't happen everyday. He said that we just tend to see what is of current interest to us and neglect everything else that may surround it even in it's proximity. And that "everything else" was SEP. He was a funny guy, but indeed he had a point.

Swiss give no bliss

It was the year 1893 that Switzerland banned the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter through a referendum with anti-Semitic undertones.

It is the year 2009 wherein Switzerland imposes a ban on mosque minarets again through a referendum with anti-Muslim undertones.

The former ban was said to have been imposed since Switzerland feared the invasion of Jews from Eastern Europe regarding them to be estranged and unreliable people. Thus the prohibition of a vital ritual was deemed the best way to impede their coming to the land.

As for the latter it is said that the Alpine people fear their identity is at stake and do not want any religious identifications to be flared so explicitly in the public. That is, they want people(in this case Muslims) to exhibit a neutral stance. What I fail to understand is how can only four minarets in all of Switzerland be threatening to the nation's cultural identity? Furthermore the applications for the construction of minarets was only two more, which were anticipated to be erected not before the next five years.

It baffles me that the Western European thinking has trickled down to such a low level that I don't exactly know how to react. Like the many opinions slated by many Muslim people around the world, it's not a feeling of anger or revenge it's a feeling of sadness and surprise. Statistically there are 30 million Muslims in Europe and they perceive this to be quite a setback not to their religious duties but to their functioning as normal dedicated European citizens. They have significantly contributed in favour of growth of the region through various professions for a few decades now. It has been asked in the wake of anti-Muslim sentiments post 9/11 that they must integrate into society more often and not alienate themselves from social gatherings where multi-ethnic, multicultural people are to be found. Here I ask, in making such an appeal and simultaneously scrutinizing every action of theirs, is it expected of them to contribute in any fearless and favourable way?

Switzerland is known for their civil liberties and secular nature. Having followed the ideals of democracy it is anti-climactical for this nation to ask for a referendum on something which goes against the very meaning of democracy. It is a precedent which now set by a (so-called) secular, tolerant country seemingly evokes the likes of many others to fall in line. Germany and Netherlands have wished to take up a similar stance. However, many people around the world from human rights groups to various other organizations including the UNO have condemned such a move by the Swiss and also call for a reversion of the ban. Most people have wisely come to realize that there might be repercussions which can be highly unfavourable and therefore have asked for the re-consideration of such a move. Adding to that piece of wisdom I say for the betterment of mankind that we musn't impose a ban on not only religious structures but also on the structures of human sensibilities.

Results are out!

It can't be more despicable to live in a system that only fails you every moment you are at it. Sadly as I say this I don't have many people by my side to back my claims. They in fact by all means accept it and some others claim it an exceptional platform to shape their lives. Indeed, in essence it is meant to be exactly that, if only it was more efficacious and adequate for the world we live in today. I speak of the inexorable educational system, that knows not of 'change'. There were once those times when our predecessors shunned the English system and considered it as a taboo for the revered cultural teachings of India, and now are the times when we must move on, but yet we want to hanker to something when the status quo demands a different deal.

We have the former Economics Professor as the Prime Minister of our country on his second term now, however, Education doesn's look as bright. I'm speaking of those numerous teaching shops that famously claim to inculcate all it takes to be skilled and qualified for the right job. There's so much universality in their language that you feel you're under an umbrella Education Bazaar. Nonetheless things don't look so dingy anymore. The Right to Education Bill which apparently existed in the Constitution is believed to have been passed by the Government and certain other proposals have been put forth, like having a central board that would decide on curricula, making board exams optional, having private players participate more vividly in the education process and also calling in foreign univeristies to have campuses in India. Of course a Stanford, Harvard, Oxford sounds as much tempting as eluding. Let's not deny that there are going to be plenty of objections from various areas concerning foreign universities setting up campuses here, primarily the inevitable question of reservations will be mooted. The revamp of education per se will have a lot of conflicts before it comes into any real effect but what we've lost out on today, can't be undone. However, it must be seen that educational reforms take their time to show effects, perhaps a decade long, so if we don't do anything now, the already pending period will only have to be stretched longer.

The method of teaching and evaluation has become so hackneyed and oddly so, we've grown immune to it. How many of us really question the pedagogical methods employed to imparting education? How much of what we study holds relevance to what must be known? We're trying to squash too many things into one bottle, aren't we? We're all wearing blinkers and set goals that would give us good grades and thus good jobs. It brings me to ask do we subconciously show contempt for dialectical methods just as the way the Greeks once did when Socrates tried to develop them? Can't we do away with mindless memorization and concentrate greater on developing a creative way of learning. We're a a good population of young people who have tremendous potential to serve the nation and largely the world if only we got ourselves the right start in education. A few early years of correct moves will result in commendable leaps in the future. We have plenty of players in the private field who shell out quite an amount of money on higher Technical education, we need them to invest in primary education. The reality lies in the roots, we need them to go deep down, hold on to rocks that would stand the heat of all times, for that's where lies the the secret behind the huge tree that speaks of its productive fruits.

Black not in vogue

H.G. Wells once said “those swarms of blacks, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people ... will have to go.” He said this in connection with the society of eugenics, whose philosophy he openly advocated. I was ignorant of this fact until now, and I was apalled at hearing this remark. What might be the odds of finding a person having read "Time Machine" and appreciated it. However, this remark was made in the later part of the nineteenth century, where apartheid was the lingo. It's further awful to know that the discoverer of DNA, James Watson claims that white people are relatively more intelligent than people who are coloured. So much so that he goes on to say that the future of Africa is questionable. It's baffling how anyone can rank anyone else's intellect on the basis of their colour, in so much as to decide a continent's fate.

It's not coincidental that I'm mentioning this in the recent backdrop of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., an American black scholar and professor at Harvard University. He was back home, and forced open the front door, which was wrongly concluded by a neighbour as an act of burglary. Indeed what appeared to be a misunderstanding initially, turned out to be a major event that attracted not only news headlines but also got people raising the topic of racism. And ironically this happens at a time when the President of America, happens to be African American. Well however it's not totally out of context to bring this up, as the fact of the matter is, it reflects on yet how the blacks are perceived to be stigmatic to society. It's nevertheless true that a small community that cannot fend for themselves have to inevitably adopt to unlawful acts to survive and this illegitimacy has proved to be a burden for the rest. But to come to an unreasonable conclusion as happened in the Gates case, has proved to be quite unproductive. The arrest was certainly uncalled for, especially after providing evidence that it was his own house, by producing an ID bearing his name and addresss.

This really points to a more pertinent question, what do people really fear about the blacks? Why would people like H.G Wells go to the extent of saying that "they should go..". Indeed once they were conducted, what are known as acts of sterilization to get rid of these so-called less intellectual minds. Why have a eugenics society at all? Doesn't nature do the job of favouring the better species on its own, and hasn't it wisely come to the conclusion that humans have the survivng streak. Why make a differentiation at all?

More Brown less Blue, Susan thanks to you!

While Gordon Brown is being battered back home, the cartoonists are having a ball of a time(pun intended). Well, you must've heard of Susan Boyle, the singing sensation who got popular through the popular British Talent show 'Got Talent'. She crashed out of the show in the semifinals and suffered from what many would call, mental stress. Brown shares one other similarity with her, they hail from Scotland. This cartoon published by the Times bears a satirical joke wherein Gordon Borwn dressed as Susan Boyle(note: not the other way round) is trying to get some of her talent passed onto him, to fill in for the Labour votes as he'd have wished. Here, not Boyle but Brown uses her clout to attract votes. It's so comical how they've gotten to draw this parallel so much so that it was Brown who was the laughing stock, contrary to what would've conventionally suited Boyle as she had a nervous breakdown, after her defeat. It truly singals how his popularity has suffered the worst ever stance and how he's at immense stress. Aparently the Business Secretary standing beside him says, "People aren't voting for Susan Boyle just because she's Scottish, Gordon—she's talented and popular!"

Adopting her much-weighted talents, I hope Mr. Brown you go a long way!

On an identity chase

It’s kinda funny how we always need some plank to define ourselves to the world. It’s a much compelling trail that never leaves us, irrespective of what identity one really has. So much that we get inevitably entangled in a crisis less innocuous than we really think. I’d been on a visit to the U.K and Italy last month and this impulsive need to distinguish myself on various grounds such as place of birth, cultural association, belief system, social background and even behavioral pattern has been very predominant. This distinction has not been in any self-demeaning fashion, but is a reflection of identifying what one is not when in a dissimilar society.

The more recent attacks on students in Australia has focused on the country of birth they hail, as opposed to whether these attacks were consciously intended on Indians. There are fewer people, who would give a fair chance to the notion that these attacks may not have been based on cultural lines. Rather may have resulted due to some mischief makers, more commonly called criminals, and the victims happened to be Indians amongst the many others living in not-so-high class areas of the country. I am not being defensive of Australia, but just trying to reflect on how seriously we take to our identities. If there were to have been a similar crude attack in India by uncivilized Indians then we’d treat it like an act of crime.

As one would hear more often that we live in a globalized society, it brings me to ask what does it really imply? Sometimes I wonder if globalization has truly made boundaries less significant. Ironically, I think it has made people cling on to their civilizational base more vividly in the fear of its disappearing in this laissez-faire. At every level we ascend, our identity doesn’t diminish but only takes on a form encompassing a greater homogenous society. For example if I went to Delhi, I would invariably identify myself as South Indian there. But if I with a Delhiite friend went to Japan, we’d like to identify ourselves as Indians. Further on, I with the Delhiite and Japanese friends were to go to France then we’d impulsively identify ourselves as Asians. But does this culminate under one single canopy? Is there a non-dividing homogenous society? That invokes the theory of the ‘clash of civilizations’, a concept put forward by Samuel Huntington. I’ve been reading the Huntington book and he spells out the nine civilizations in the world that stand non-overlapped and by and large conflicting. Every single day we’ve had scores of reasons to believe it. Conflicts based on ethnic lines in various parts of the world, representative of their civilizations have occurred time and again.

Having said this I would like to reiterate what I mentioned before, the identity chase is truly a greater imposing affair than we really think.