Monday, January 26, 2015

On Occasion of Republic Day

I see all around me a fervour. A zing in everybody's step. 26th Jan 15 is Republic Day for India, and all Indians are proud. Today is the day when the constitution of India came into force 65 years ago. I see parties, celebrations, events, flag-hoisting ceremonies and patriotic songs (interspersed with the occasional Bollywood item number). I see Facebook posts, photos of the tri-colour, selfies against national backdrops, images with the tri-coloured theme as a meme on WhatsApp, nationalist sentiments everywhere. I see group admins change their group display pictures on WhatsApp, I see cover pages updated to reflect the tricolour on Facebook, I see profile pics on Google undergo a transformation into suddenly renewed "Indian-ness". I see a deluge of nationalist pride everywhere online. All good so far. 

But personally, I also sense the need for introspection. The constitution of India was a document that was drafted in a 2-year period from 1947 to 1949. 

At the outset, let me state (for the benefit of those fringe groups who take affront at leaves falling from trees) that the Constitution of India is an exhaustive and well-drafted document. It covers a vast gamut of legislation that was critical and needed. It is carefully researched and in no way do I intend to contradict that. The point of this post is different. The Constitution is a huge document that calls upon various legislations in the past (primarily the Government of India Act 1858, Indian Councils Act 1861, Indian Councils Act 1892 and the various amendments and modifications done thereto between the late 1800s and the early 1900s). Essentially, in 2015 we are celebrating a constitution created in 1949 (around 65 years ago) based on laws originally promulgated in the late 1800s (around 150 years ago). I'd say it's time to revisit this document and prune it wherever required.

Some glaring areas of opportunity where I see an urgent need for complete rehaul are - 
  • Articles 15 and 16 of the constitution which talk of allowing governmental bodies to make reservations based on caste. 
  • Article 44 which talks of the duty of the state to implement a uniform civil code. This is still a pipe-dream and needs to be picked up urgently for any social reform to happen. 
Let's go into each in a little bit more detail. 

Reservations - 
Part 3 (Fundamental Rights), Articles 15 and 16 of the constitution specifically talk about equal opportunities for all citizens. Sample extracts are as follows - 
3.16.4 - Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. 
3.15.4 - Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 
All points in both these articles talk about various public facilities, employment opportunities, other public amenities and the sanction given to the government to make reservations or special provisions for "backward classes" of citizens in order to protect the fundamental principle of equal opportunity therein. All good so far. But the fact of the matter is, reservation is an obsolete concept and caste-based reservation even more so. It has been misused and taken advantage of. The results of course, are there for all to see. Sub-standard teachers have churned out sub-standard students, sub-standard professionals have churned out sub-standard services and the rot is setting in deeper with each new added quota. I'm all for equal opportunity, but not at the cost of meritocracy. What is needed is to change the definition of "backward classes". Currently defined on the basis of caste, it needs to discard this framework and take into account financial standing. The poor can become the backward class irrespective of what caste they belong to. They shall enjoy privileges in order to ensure equal opportunity.

We need to take a second look at both these articles (and related articles, clauses and sub-clauses interspersed throughout the constitution) to discard the reservation/quota system and replace it with a framework that gives these rights to the poor and the financially challenged. 

Uniform Civil Code - 
The need for a uniform civil code is enshrined in the directive principles of the Constitution of India (Part 4, article 44)
4.44 - The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
 This has never materialized. Such an explicit statement as article 44 has been ignored and relegated to the back-burner just to serve the vested interests of certain communities and people. The Shah Bano case showed us how critical it is to have all communities follow the constitution. Till some communities operate outside the constitution with impunity, we shall never have equality in any form or manner. The Constitution of India has to supersede any religious laws without exception. I have expounded on this topic exhaustively in a previous post. You can check out the full text here

Having said that, I am sure that if a panel were to be constituted along modern principles of jurisprudence to analyze the entire Constitution of India, it would throw up some interesting findings other than the two sections I have highlighted above. 

I feel we should take the occasion of Republic Day to think about the Constitution of India in a new light. As the world's largest democracy and a global power at the centre of the world stage, it is our duty to lead the way to reinvention of our own principles as a means to adapt to our constantly changing environment. Celebrating Republic Day is all very well. But it is also our duty as citizens of this country to introspect on our own tenets, analyze our own codes and improve them in order to ensure that the fundamental principles of democracy in particular and humanism in general are upheld.

Jai Hind.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Partitioning a disk to install Ubuntu

One of the biggest stumbling block for a newbie to install Linux on a machine with Windows on it is partitioning the hard drive. Partitioning a disk is tricky without the added pressure of knowing that if you mess something up, you risk losing a working installation of Windows as well. Here's the good news - Ubuntu has made it really easy. Apart from the partitioning window, things don't get too complicated when installing Ubuntu. Here's how to go about it.

First off, we need to understand the basic difference between a Windows filesystem and a Linux filesystem. Think of Windows as a block diagram where the various partitions of a hard drive sit at the same level. Your C drive and your D drive are the parent folders of their own heirarchies, something like this - 

Basically, the logical partitions of a windows hard drive are masters of their own domains (no puns intended). They command their own trees like feudal lords, so to say. Their respective drives form their own folder structures and the root folder of each logical partitiom is the beginning of the structure. Linux is a bit different, something like this - 

The folder structure itself acts as a organizing system for logical partitions in Linux whereas the partitions act as the base for the folder structure in Windows. This means that teh entire hard disk (the physical partition) needs a mount point too. This is the root folder (/). In the root folder, you will find mount points for the other logical partitions (they could be a folder in the root folder or a sub-folder within a folder too). In the example above, /home is the mount point for a logical partition and becomes the root folder for that particular partition.

Coming back from theory, what we need to remember when installing Linux and when we come to the dreaded "Something Else" option when we are installing Windows is that each partition in a Linux drive needs a mount point. In essence, we need part of the hard drive that is formatted using Windows NTFS file-system and part of the drive handed over to Linux ext4 file-system where each of its partitions have a mount point. A standard dual-boot hard drive will be configured as follows - 

When the time comes to choose partitioning (Step 4 in the installation process outlined in one of our previous posts here), and if you're thinking of being a dare-devil and choosing the "Something Else" option, understanding these concepts will give you an idea of how your hard drive needs to be structured. A sample partition table is as below - 

  • The first partition is the one allocated for Windows with 50GB labelled "Windows". 
  • We then have an extended partition which contains the following logical partitions 
    • A root partition for Linux of about 50GB with / as the mount point. 
    • A swap partition of about 4GB
    • A data partition with "/media/observer/data" as the mount point but partitioned as NTFS which both Windows and Linux can use for storing data.
This is the only tricky portion in installing Linux. The rest is as easy as falling off a log! 

For more detailed information, check Ubuntu's official documentation on partitioning your hard drive. This document provides a clear explanation of what partitions are, how to use them and what to do when installing Ubuntu. I also found a very useful and very easy instructable on doing this, which you can access here. This includes a very detailed and step-by-step process on dual-booting Ubuntu with Windows 7. 

Happy computing!

Sunday, January 11, 2015

The Psychiatry of Religion

Click on Image to open embedded PDF
This note examines the deep-seated connection that religion has with our brain and its link to the amygdala. It explores the evolution of the brain, the psychological evolution of religion and its connection to fear as a primal emotion. 

Happy reading!

Friday, January 9, 2015

Time to Reform

I don't see Bajrang Dal activists murdering Aamir Khan and Rajkumar Hirani because they made the movie "PK". I don't see Christian zealots killing Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris because they question the very existence of Jesus. Charlie Hebdo just shows us that Islam needs to reform. It needs to introspect. It needs to weed out the very framework that allows this intolerance.

Original Credit - Lucille Clerc (
Today it is a bunch of journalists sitting in some stuffy office in Paris. Tomorrow it could be you or me. 

Thursday, January 8, 2015

The Problem with Religion

It is time we acknowledged the skeleton in our closet. Fundamentalist Islam. While the world tries to push towards the 21st century and towards collective progress, we need to acknowledge the existence of an endemic problem if a specific community or part thereof indulge in repeated violence to spread "God's" word. There's only one solution - a revamp. An overhaul of the religious psyche. A complete investigation at what drives this insanity and to cure it. The religion needs to change. Islam needs to change. And for the world to progress, it needs to change fast. Let me illustrate with examples of religious violence in the past one and a half month. 

Since 16th December 2014, 597 people have been killed and over 153 have been injured in just the major attacks that have been covered by some major news agency. Even adjusting for a 20% exaggeration, that translates to 21 deaths a day which amounts to 7923 deaths a year solely because of religion! I must say though that the 20% adjustment for exaggeration is not fair. There must be scores of other attacks which I have not culled from the news and/or have not even been reported. If we extrapolate these numbers over decades of Islamic fundamentalism, we have an astronomical number. Innocent women, children and men killed for no reason. No reason at all. Other than religion.

There can be no doubt about the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace. There is also no doubt that the West has been responsible (at-least partly) for the rise of Islamic fundamentalists. Two of the biggest catalysts for this rise are - 
  • Cold War roots - The US, UK and other NATO governments pumped money into propping up Islamic rebel fighters calling themselves the Mujahideen to stave off Russian advances in the Afghanistan region. Though this move was successful in the short term, it gave rise to the Al Qaeda and subsequently Osama Bin Laden. 
  • Iraqi War - Bush is perhaps the most idiotic President that the US has ever seen. An overtly religious man with many fingers in many pies, the juiciest of which is oil; he had no business in Iraq. He waged war on Iraq for vested interests and the fact is pretty well known. There was no reason to invade Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction found and the methods that the US Army deployed to execute Saddam were deplorable and cowardly. This has ultimately given rise to ISIS. 

Those to whom evil is done, do evil in return. And such has been the creed by which the world has operated. Machiavellian machinations by the western world have given rise to Islamic fundamentalists. But can we blame the west and be done with it? I think not. As Ed Hoffman (artfully portrayed by Russell Crowe) succintly quips in the movie "Body of Lies", "Nobody's innocent in this shit". The fact remains that it still does not absolve Islam of the repeated acts of terror that are committed across borders and communities. Right from Paki Taliban in Asia to Boko Haram in Nigeria, we've got a problem. This problem is compounded more so by the simple fact that the religion itself prohibits criticism. We don't have Christians in America killing people when Richard Dawkins makes fun of the faith and questions the very existence of Jesus. We don't have Hindus murdering the audience and random citizens who go to the movie PK despite the fact that the movie has made fun of religion. We don't have Jews rampaging Hitchens' office just because he laid into the Old Testament. The problem lies deeper than just a few rotten apples in each community. To take a comparable example from the more peaceful religion of Hinduism (and I'm doing this only because I value my life), Togadia's statements about a Hidu rashtra are made possible partly because we have allowed him to occupy a reasonably important position in a reasonably large organisation (VHP). If we loudly call him out as an idiot and send him off packing, a thousand other Togadias would get the message and keep their antics and remarks confined to their minds and the privacy of their own homes (if that). Similarly, it is the silent sanction of the moderate Islamists that have made these acts possible. 

The problem in my opinion is not just the fundamentalists. The real reason that fundamentalists are allowed to exist is that moderates and liberals like us allow them to exist and operate. By accepting religion, they accept the acts that are done in its name. Moderate Hindus make Togadia's statements possible, moderate christians have allowed Bush to ride right-wing religious coat-tails and cause havoc, moderate Muslims make murder possible by not stamping it out and by not admitting that religion is the problem. When a moderately religious person allows a faith-based belief system to exist, the next step is intolerance. And from there to violence is just a small step further. Because at the basis of most religions (more so for the Abrahamic religions) is the assumption that their god is the only true god. It is because moderates have stopped questioning their faith that extremists are allowed to exist. We might very well argue that the moderates are not harming anybody. They are not causing violence. They hate the fundamentalists just as much as the atheists do. The problem is not that they are actively indulging in violence. The problem is that by accepting the very concept of religion, they are sanctioning the fundamentalists. I read a rather well-thought out and well-articulated communique about moderate religion. You can read the entire article here. An extract (and I tend to agree with the gist) is as follows - 
The simple, indisputable fact is that any god belief requires faith, and if you follow my writings at all, you know that “faith,” properly defined, is “belief in a thing despite evidence to the contrary, or a total lack of evidence.” Once you get them to the point of admitting that they hold a belief despite it’s opposition to reason, you can see that the facade of moderation is just that – a facade. At their core, they are exactly the same as fundamentalists. They just pick a more socially acceptable irrationality. What they really mean when they say you should question everything is that you should question everything – except for the validity of faith as a means of acquiring knowledge.
Another way of saying this is that where religious faith is concerned, allowing a little irrationality is no different from allowing a lot. This point is so important that it needs to be made again. Accepting the belief that some things are true and irrational is what gives a perception of validity to every religious belief. Right wing fundamentalists are crazy. These are people who are out of touch with reality. The reason they are not either publicly ridiculed or maybe even forcibly medicated is that they are given a free pass — because it’s religion.  If people believed the Jolly Green Giant was making proclamations from the side of a can of vegetables, they would be examined by a psychologist.   However, when they believe an invisible man in the sky tells them to kill abortion doctors, they’re politely encouraged to be a little more moderate. 

And nowhere is this more relevant than today. With Islamic fundamentalists running havoc, the very tenets of faith need to be questioned to reform the religion using a bottom-up approach. Which brings us to the nub. 

We need to realise that morality has nothing to do with religion. We need to realise that the world has made progress despite religion, not because of it. We need to realise that the 21st century has more pressing demands. Starvation, disease, poverty, recession, unemployment and climate change to name a few. We need to realise that religion itself is the problem. It is an obsolete concept. It needs to be replaced. And we need to do it fast. 

Sunday, January 4, 2015


While I don't usually publish my compositions, I can't resist but sharing this. The most beautiful sunset that I have ever seen was the inspiration for this short poem. While I most assuredly continue to be an atheist (and an outspoken one), the reference to god is the unity one feels with nature. Not god as a benefactor, but as a concept that embodies the deep sense of connection one feels with mother earth. It is this connection that I like to think of as spirituality. 


Here. At the junction;
Of sky, water and earth
The sun vows rebirth. 

Here; a symphony
Of waves crashing ashore
Lets my soul explore. 

Here is a marriage;
Of rich color and sound
Where reds and golds abound.

Here; that blessed union
Even the skies applaud
Of me and my god.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

What Modi did not Foresee

I read an article today in the Times of India that the Dhangar community in Maharashtra is threatening to convert en masse to Christianity if they are not given an SC certificate. Pravin Togadia is issuing inexplicable statements that he will preside over the rebirth of a 100% Hindu rashtra. Bajrang Dal is starting idiotic programs of "Bahu lao beti bachao", right-wing fringe groups are vandalizing shows of the movie "PK" and Azam Khan's buffalos are still missing. India is going crazy. 

It's time to speak up about the conversion issue. I've been reading and watching people behave like fools. Righteous leaders are talking about how hindus were led astray and pompous self-proclaimed guardians of the "faith" are talking about how they had predicted Modi would turn out to be a Hindu bigot in disguise.This descent into madness is something that is sad to see. For a nation poised on the cusp of greatness on the global stage, it is heart-breaking to see us turn right around and try to head into the dark ages slamming our backs on rationality and progress.

Conversion is a non-isse. Organized religion is obsolete. There have been numerous studies highlighting the negative correlation between education/intelligence and religiosity. I need not publish those here. That's not the point of my post.

2014 has definitely been the year of Modi. He took over the reigns of the country from a robot with a very limited range of instruction-sets. "Theek hai na . .?" had become the buzzword of the year. Modi's main opponent was RaGa backed by Diggy and co (both an insult to the senses and direct proof that man has indeed descended from monkeys). Modi's decisions as soon as he took over office were on the right track - 
  • He abolished the eGoM (empowered group of ministers) and centralized decision-making
  • He appointed intelligent and meritorious people to the right positions (Doval as chief of NIA, A Subramaniam as Chief Economic Advisor amongst other similar appointments in the top echelons of the civil service). 
  • He made the right moves on the WTO trade deal
  • He has made and is making the right moves on the economic front
  • His handling of the Kashmir crisis has been top-notch. Decisive and firm.

But unfortunately, he forgot to take into account a very big aspect of the Indian political situation. That we are racist idiots. That we'd rather sit and bicker about religion and caste than take constructive steps towards modernization. That we'd rather vandalize movie theaters for an imagined slight than contribute constructively on That we'd rather focus on conversion than community development. There's no doubt about it - in his desire for progress and development, Modi forgot to sit back and ask himself whether we deserve all the things he has envisioned for us? While Modi is talking about smart cities, we are conducting pujas of "ghar wapsi". While Modi is talking about building a futuristic Singapore-like infrastructure in the new capital of Andhra Pradesh, we are bickering about how Lord Shiva was offended by a scene in the movie PK. While Modi is talking of Japanese investment to the tune of USD 34 billion over the next 5 years, we are talking of transferring the Taj Mahal to the Waqf Board because it was built by Muslims for Muslims. While Modi is urging Indians to bring in respect for women as part of our DNA, we are busy barring women from entering libraries

We really need to enter the 21st century. The biggest problems before the world are eradication of hunger, health and climate change. We need to realise that religion is the least important thing we should be worried about. Even if we forget the global stage, we have a lot more important things to look at right here in India than the question of which religion to follow. As a concept, religion is dying. It is obsolete. It is outmoded. It is irrelevant. And it needs to be relegated to obscurity behind closed doors. it is time to change. 

For Modi to bring in the change that we all want, it is imperative that we be open to that change. For Modi to stop corruption, we must stop giving bribes. For Modi to provide clean cities, we must stop littering. For Modi to usher in vote-bank free politics, we must stop being racist. For Modi to give us honest civil servants, we must stop lying and cheating. For Modi to stop rape, we must stop being male chauvinistic bastards. For Modi to improve education, we must stop thinking like automatons and start questioning. For Modi to build a superpower, we must be the change we want to see. Only then can there be any real progress. If we waste time in absolutely non-value added issues like religion, India will never progress beyond Azam Khan's bufoonery and Pravin Togadia's idiocy. We need more Abdul Kalams than Bukharis. We need more Radhakrishnans than Togadias. 

We need more reason than religion.