Thursday, April 17, 2014

The difference between secularism and tolerance

Whenever I converse with some tweeples who call themselves "staunch Bharatiyas," "nationalists" and so on, I hear the term 'pseudo-sickular' hurled at me often for questioning their faith in certain aspects of their ideology (read Hindutva). When I talk of carnage in the name of Hindutva like Babri and post-Godhra Gujarat in 2002 they use this term and bring in 1984, Kashmitri Pundits and some other riots where Hindus were also killed in large numbers.

Apart from being a logical fallacy to argue on those lines (two wrongs don't make a right) and the endless blame game (I'm only talking about Hindutva here not something else but we digress often because of this blame game), I am accused by the tweeples of being pseudo-secular.

First of all, secularism is a practice of the state, it is when the state or a country, separates itself from religion in all its activities. An individual is tolerant, he/she respects other's faith. This tolerance, however, does not mean that people ought to buy each and every tenet one's faith teaches. 

This game has been played by many of the so called "nationalists" for many years now, they have stolen the term 'secular' for their own selfish purposes and have played the role of a victim beautifully. 

I urge you to not fall prey to such peoples' jibes. Stand your ground. Oppose all aspects of violence in the name of anything, be it religion or politics.

India will be a secular state if people are tolerant. The state need not tolerate any of these atrocities in the name of secularism. 

Thursday, February 20, 2014

What is India to me?

Photo Credit: National Geographic 
When I turn on the TV to National Geographic, Fox Traveler or some similar channel, often enough, I come across a programme about India. Indian food, Indian lifestyle and the diversity of India is hailed by the presenters who go on to call India "exotic" and "mesmerising."

I asked myself the question, "what do I feel about my country?" And frankly I went blank. I could not find one answer. India, no doubt, is diverse. I feel it is this diversity that makes us rich. Geographically and demographically we are a conglomeration of so many different notes that come together seamlessly to form a chord.

Noted historian Ramachandra Guha calls India a "salad bowl" with its variety in colour, flavour and texture. Rabindranath Tagore epitomised our country's spirit in the great hymn Jana Gana Mana,  the first stanza of which was adopted as our National Anthem. In the second stanza, Tagore writes how the various religions of India come together weaving a "garland of love."

This was the India envisioned by our founding fathers. A country so diverse, where the entire landscape changes every few hundred kilometers and where so many cultures are intertwined, come together and sing that beautiful hymn by Tagore in their own way, but which combines into one voice which praises our unity in diversity.

The full hymn by Tagore can be seen in the above link.

However, when I ask myself if this the way India is heading today, I feel regretful. The natural beauty of India is tarnished by vandals for profit and the secular fabric of India is torn by religious fundamentalists who think India should belong to only a few. Some people have a problem with the way women dress and what they do. Evidently they do not respect our diversity
Photo by:

We see images of India's success story almost everyday. The growth and the way India has progressed is
being talked about all over the world. But still there is poverty. The divide between the super rich and the extremely poor is wide. We must look into these aspects too. Growth and development should not be exclusive to the rich and the middle-class but should include everyone.

India is comprised of over a billion people with over 70% of them living in villages. But all we hear in the 24/7 news and travel/lifestyle channels is about how cities are growing and how the middle-class is performing. This must change. We have to be inclusive of everyone.

As people of India, we must realise that all our compatriots do not belong to the same religion, have the same lifestyle, live only in cities and work in multinational companies. We must realise that all of us in some way are different and that is what makes India great. Finally, I urge each and everyone to ask themselves this same question. What is India to you?

I end this article by asking you to listen to this English hymn, 'I vow to thee my country.' Although it is a British patriotic song, we can learn from its lyrics that each of us owes a promise to our country to live in harmony.

Open the video in a new tab/browser and the lyrics are given here below.

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
I heard my country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.
Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,
And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.
I hear the noise of battle, the thunder of her guns,
I haste to thee my mother, a son among thy sons.
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

The argument about Intelligent Design

I'm sorry that this blog has not been updated in a while, situations were such that I could not do it. However, I will do my best henceforth to regularly update my blog.

A few weeks ago, I was part of a debate on the topic 'Is Religion Relevant in Today's World.' Needless to say, it was very stimulating and from the comments I heard after it was over, I think everyone had a great time participating in the debate. I wish to extend my thanks to everyone who made it happen including the students and faculty of the Departments of Mass Communication and Visual Communication in my College; the moderator Prof. Venkat Lokanathan; the honourable proposition who showed brilliant oratory skilll; my team who challenged the proposition to a great extent with equally good arguments and finally all those who were in attendance.

Through this blog post, I wish to bring to notice one of the arguments by the proposition during the debate, that of 'Intelligent Design.' It was put forth by the proposition as an 'equally good theory' to evolution if my memory serves me right. I wish to explain what Intelligent Design is and why it is not even a 'theory' (scientifically speaking), let alone being 'equally good.'

Intelligent Design is the theory that since living organisms are too complex to have evolved by random chance, there must have been something (or someone) who 'designed' the organisms in their present state itself. It is promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative organisation from America and is an extension of the creationist argument that the Judeo-Christian God created this world is six days about 6000 years ago. More on Intelligent Design can be found here.

The arguments from Intelligent Design include the concepts of complexity and the fine tuned nature of the universe and I will try to refute these notions here.

Complexity: One of the complexity theories was propounded by Michel Behe (1996) which said that is that biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler systems. The examples they give for such complex systems include the human eye and the flagella in bacteria. However this was refuted by Niall Shanks And Karl H. Joplin (1998) in their paper Redundant Chemicals (use your JSTOR id or if you have UGC inflibnet id, that also works). In their paper they said that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organising chemical processes. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because of his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions, resulting in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. They also criticized his over-reliance of overly simplistic metaphors, such as his mousetrap.

This, put simply means that nature can naturally give rise to complexity by itself. Many examples can be given of this property of self-organisation in chemicals like the the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction.

The complexity theory can also be refuted by what is called 'exaptation' that is the process where precursors of complex systems may be useful to perform other functions. Examples for this include the middle bone in the mammalian ear M. Brazeau and P. Ahlberg (2006). 

The Fine Tuned Nature of the Universe: This is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood. (Source)

This was refuted by Victor J. Stenger (1999). Some of the counter arguments for the fine tunes nature of the Universe are that if the Universe were fine tuned for the sake of existence, then the entire, or atleast, a large part of the universe must be conducive to life. However, as far as we know of the universe till now, we have only found the earth as a planet that is able to harbour life. Stenger's full paper can be accessed here.

Intelligent Design also argues based on the 'God of the Gaps' principle, that is, it argues that whatever science has not explained so far, is the work of the 'designer.' This is a foolish statement to say the least. Just because science has not found everything it does not mean that anything other than science can answer that question. To answer a question that science has not found evidence to with an argument that in itself has no evidence is only an insult to the intellect of humans and our curiosity that has led us to so many discoveries.

Science has eradicated many diseases and even conquered outer space. It has not yet found answers to everything but it is certainly working on the answers and to attribute the unanswered questions to a 'designer' or 'God' is simply not good enough as an answer either because it begs the question 'Who is this designer or God then?' And we have no evidence for that either.

Are we so perfect as Intelligent Design claims? If we are 'created' or 'designed' to lord over this world, then shouldn't we be perfect? But then, why is our eye not as good as an eagle's or our ear not as good as a dog's? Why are we not the strongest of species on the earth or the most agile?

We are not perfect, we have organs like the appendix which is of no use to our bodies. An infected appendix can even kill us! Why would any 'Intelligent Designer' give an organ that is completely useless and can potentially kill us? Why do men have nipples? Why is the male scrotum in such a vulnerable place and not even protected while its there? Is this 'intelligent designer' playing the fool or just plain stupid?

These are a few questions I shall leave you all with. And remember, as Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."