Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Dad and 3 Kids Alive After 3 Days Out in the Snow

What a story for Christmas! And how awesome to know that their faith kept them alive, together and strong!

Praise God for all this!

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The Hijacking of Our Kids' Minds


It started again with a Peggy Noonan article from the past that I re-read today, titled 'We're Scaring Our Children to Death'. Reading some reviews of this article on other websites I realized that the opinions on this, as usual, is as polarized as they could get. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with the argument. Noonan says that we are scaring our kids by publicly displaying scenes of racial violence and cruelty on murals near schools; she goes on to unfold other ways in which we unleash fear on kids: by exposing them to menacing rappers, potty-mouths (she mentions Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell), deranged murderers on TV (Virginia Tech murderer's rants aired publicly), graphic ads, scary news reports, warnings of global warming showing glaciers melting, international terrorism.

She says that in her youth, living in Cold War-era duck-and-cover drills were pretty scary, but in general a kid could be a kid.


Nothing wrong with that article, is there? Or isn't there? When you went through that laundry list, it surely must have struck you like a shock of cold water- that cynicism that prompts you to investigate further what others have to say about this, what other issues Peggy Noonan herself has written about, what spin may lie between those words. It's good to be a media-skeptic.


Just to make it clear, I do admire and agree with some of Noonan's writings. This isn't meant to single her or other political conservatives out; and this extends, as we shall see, just as much to political liberals. This is something deeper than the clash of these two strata of society.


Yes, on the one hand it makes sense. About six years ago, I read an article in a British newspaper (which I cannot find anymore on the internet) about how parents have changed for the worse. It bemoaned the fact that the carefree kids of yore no longer exist. In the past, a happy schoolboy could walk home from school with mud all over him, roam about the streets, talk to a tramp by his fire, listen to his tall tales (and learn something of life in the process), buy lozenges from a chemist and be completely carefree (so the article said). This recalls to mind my own childhood in India, the India of pre-mobile phone, pre-conspicuous consumption, pre-congested road days; and it inexorably brings to mind characters like Richmal Crompton's William, Enid Blyton's Famous Five or the Secret Seven, and the Pevensie children from Lewis' Narnia. Some common elements in these works of fiction include responsible older kids who are honest, loyal, brave and responsible for the weaker and younger ones- Julian Kirrin, Peter Pevensie, Peter of the Secret Seven... the kind of boys and girls who were at one time England's backbone (if only idealized in fiction). William is a notable exception, but even he is the leader of his gang and his leadership pulls them through every danger. This article lamented that today's parents keep a tight leash on kids by giving them mobile phones, ask them to call often and assure them of their safety, warn them not to talk to any stranger, accept candy from noone except parents, and so on. We can sympathize with all of this, but the point is not lost on those of us who have known a normal childhood.


On the other hand- we need to ask ourselves. If something is truly dangerous, should we not warn our kids? Crompton's William roams his village streets at dusk when there are air raid sirens during World War II, which strikes me as being unrealistic or simply that his parents were irresponsible. The Pevensie kids make their journey away to the safe countryside from war-ravaged London around this same time. The Famous Five and Secret Seven move around the wilderness unsupervised, accept refreshments from wayside inns or strangers, all the while showing exemplary presence of mind and courage.


So isn't it important to warn kids of these things? When there is a war, shouldn't kids know about it? Iraqi kids, for instance- shouldn't they be asked to be careful when roaming the streets? Danger needs to be conveyed and kids need to deal with it sensibly- upto a point. Kids cannot solve all the problems facing our world, and exposing them to only this grim nature of our fallen world, with no detectable ray of hope is not a good thing. As Noonan says, the counter-argument to this in the past was 'if you don't like it, change the channel.' But, as she says, it is now everywhere. True, entertainment in inescapable. Video games, TV, songs, movies, all portray a coarse culture with a taste for the profane and the violent.


But I digress. If you notice, both the Left and the Right are pretty adept are politicizing almost every thing on the planet- religion, morality, the environment and now the issue of what is suitable for kids. Noonan's writing laments the decay of politics and smear campaigns, the Right talks about the "culture of death" when referring to issue such as abortion and euthanasia. The Left talks about global warming, the war in Iraq and the impending financial crisis in the form of the looming national debt, housing market worries and so on. It's part and parcel of politics to talk about the ills of the opposition, but to invite kids to share in this fear is dangerous. There is a right way to talk to kids; and whatever we are doing now through our media, schools and public life- is not it.


A year ago, local politicians in Cochin, India organized a march by schoolkids to save Mangalavanam, a neglected, wild mangrove forest right in the middle of bustling, bursting at the seams downtown area. The threat was from a group of people who wanted to turn this into apartment blocks. The aim of the march was to ensure that the forest remains as it is. While this is laudable, the claims of this groups were as follows: Mangalavanam, being a green spot, in this rapidly rising urban area, serves as the city's lungs and the otherwise harried residents would not be able to breathe easy at all without such a spot. Some politicans also claimed that bat droppings in this forest purified the air around this place, whatever that means. This pseudo-scientific theory belies what is most obvious: for such an important green spot in the middle of a city, what has been done to make this place welcome to the residents of the city, to help them sit there and breathe its air, to admire nature around them? Absolutely nothing! The place is crawling with snakes and noone can actually enjoy it at all, with all those bat droppings around. There is no stewardship to any of this, just emotional blackmail. One must inevitably ask- for what purpose? The answer is the same: for political mileage.


Peggy Noonan, Dan Rather, Lou Dobbs, and the rest of the journalistic community are all guitly of it. Besides the scare factor, if kids need a break from anything, it is precisely this. All this agenda-driven overdrive to get their allegience.

Monday, November 26, 2007

The Lost Art of Courteous Conversation

I was at dinner with relatives the day after Thanksgiving, and the topic of the 2008 Presidential elections came up. We discussed the pros and cons of the potential candidates on both sides, when out of the blue someone remarked, 'Even a chimp could do a better job than George Bush.' This statement was followed up by some similarly flippant remarks on his ability to articulate, his education and so on. Regardless of the fact that doing a better than George Bush cannot be a factor in the next elections (since Bush is not a possible candidate ayway), I didn't continue the discussion although a good critical look at many flawed Bush policies would have made good conversation at the dinner.

This brought me back to a column by Peggy Noonan about the courtesy to be observed in the give and take of political discourse, the gist being that we have lost the ability to dissect, disagree or criticize without being coarse. In it Noonan highlights Ann Coulter and Bill Maher in two separate incidents which made her wince- Coulter suggesting John Edwards was gay, and Maher mentioning a lot of lives could have been saved if Dick Cheney were dead.

Funny enough, when someone makes such a strong negative statement about a candidate, it makes me sympathize with the candidate a little. When Noonan herself sometimes goes overboard in her criticism of Mrs. Clinton it makes me want to understand her better, to believe that all this mud cannot be completely true of her.

Besides all this Ms. Noonan's column makes another interesting point. I quote it here:
Conservatives said they were chilled by Mr. Maher's comments, but I don't
think they were. They were delighted he revealed what they believe is at the
heart of modern liberalism, which is hate.

Liberals amused themselves making believe they were chilled by Ms.
Coulter's remarks, but they were not. They were delighted she has revealed what
they believe is at the heart of modern conservatism, which is hate.

The truth is many liberals were dismayed by Mr. Maher because he made
them look bad, and many conservatives were mad at Ms. Coulter for the same
reason.

I realized as I watched it all play out that there's a kind of simple
way to know whether something you just heard is something that should not have
been said. It is: Did it make you wince? When the Winceometer is triggered, it's
an excellent indication that what you just heard is unfortunate and ought not to
be repeated.

In both cases, Mr. Maher and Ms. Coulter, when I heard them, I winced.
Did you? I thought so. In modern life we wince a lot. It's not the worst thing,
but it's better when something makes you smile.

Good point, I think. We always feel chagrined when someone who claims to share our point of view misrepreents it by making a remark that you would always distance yourself from. It's good to remember that if you want people to listen you had better have something to give them than verbal abuse.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Twist of Karma- the Hindu American Foundation's Two Faces

Amazing enough that the Hindu American Foundation which has often complained about Protestant missions in India now lobbying hard against the Bush Administration restricting some religious visas.

The link is here. Some of HAF's members in the past have complained about missionaries coming in to India on visitors' visas and preaching in a church. India, of course, doesn't grant religious visas to missionaries.

It's pretty typical that the HAF would like to enjoy the liberties for adherents of the Hindu faith in the US that they would not grant those of other faiths in India. Thus they would fight against having Christian artifacts, paintings, the Ten Commandements and so on placed in American public buildings, ignoring the fact that it is commnplace in India to have Hindu artifacts in Indian public buildings. The same goes for other minority faiths in the US. The Islamic community would lobby hard for privileges that would never be allowed other faiths in countries that have accepted Islam as state religion.

It certainly speaks highly of the US as being a truly open, clear-thinking community; and the HAF should do well to think hard about the value of these liberties which they would deny their non-Hindu brethren in India.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The Art of Penmanship, October and Robert Frost

The other day a visiting aquaintance was bemoaning the loss of penmanship and the art of letter-writing in our email, send/receive, mouse-click-send, trigger-happy, copy/paste culture. As much as I share his lament I'm sorry to say I've been guilty of this as well. But after over a decade I sat down to actually write a letter I plan to mail out to India. The secret to this new-found enthusiasm is a font I newly discovered that is almost like my own handwriting (but much better than mine). And I have displayed it here. I think you will agree that it is worth writing a letter with.

The font is here for interested parties:

Angelina handwritten font

On another note, time was when I would, every October, print Robert Frost's memorable ode to October (beginning 'O Hushed October morning mild') only for myself to read and indulge in its familiar warmth in the crisp autumnal air as I watch the falling leaves outside.

Here it is, typed out in Angelina font.

For the impatient or the uncaring, here it is in Georgia:

Robert Frost (1874–1963). A Boy’s Will. 1915.
October

O HUSHED October morning mild,
Thy leaves have ripened to the fall;
To-morrow’s wind, if it be wild,
Should waste them all.
The crows above the forest call;
To-morrow they may form and go.
O hushed October morning mild,
Begin the hours of this day slow,
Make the day seem to us less brief.
Hearts not averse to being beguiled,
Beguile us in the way you know;
Release one leaf at break of day;
At noon release another leaf;
One from our trees, one far away;
Retard the sun with gentle mist;
Enchant the land with amethyst.
Slow, slow!
For the grapes’ sake, if they were all,
Whose leaves already are burnt with frost,
Whose clustered fruit must else be lost—
For the grapes’ sake along the wall.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Educating Ourselves to Imbecility- Contraceptives in Middle School

The availability of the pill to 11 year old kids in Maine without parental knowledge is creating furore across the US. The Baltimore Sun in this article represents, I think, the point of view of those who support the program.

Here's a quote from the article"

Dr. Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said she hates to hear complaints that contraception equals a free pass when it comes to becoming sexually active."I don't really think that the primary objection that the public has holds any water - that it encourages sex," she said. "It's sort of like [saying] the availability of seat belts causes more traffic accidents. The availability of contraception does not cause risky sex."

Nitpicking being my favourite pastime, let's deconstruct this for a moment: we wear seatbelts to prevent injury resulting from a collision, tipover or other such accidents. If the accident does not happen there is no injury. One doesn't need to wear a seatbelt after or during the accident in order to prevent injuries. Nor does one need to wear a seatbelt with the distinct objective of getting into an accident. A contraceptive user makes use of a contraceptive specifically in order to have "safe" sex. Contraceptive use is conditional- it is used on condition that the user takes part in sexual activity. The comparison between it and seatbelt-wearing is illogical and perhaps a little disingenuous in this context.

Let's stretch this argument a bit. The opposing camp could claim that the contraceptives are not being necessarily used, but simply distributed. It may or may not be used- and it is distributed with general parental knowledge of its availability if it is requested by a student. This is again a disingenuous argument. The knowledge that potential pregnancies could be avoided is a pretty powerful motivator to indulge in sexual activity. Besides, the message the school is sending out is that pregnancies that are underage and "unwanted"pregnancies are the greatest evil, not immorality or underage sex. So in conclusion- yes, it will encourage underage sexual activity, sexual experimentation, sexual promiscuity. Yes, it will (as it clearly has done) reduce teen pregnancies- no question about that. Yes, it is a postmodern line of thought that morality doesn't matter. That, more than anything else, leads to the destruction of a society.

Attempts to reduce the significance of this are ridiculous. We are indeed, as Neil Postman said, amusing ourselves to death; and as Muggeridge put it, educating ourselves to imbecility. Erotomania or megalomania- that's the choice for the world outside of Christ. I'm thinking of our 3-year old daughter: the more I hear about this the more I wonder where we could get her educated in a safe environment, away from these predators. People with no means to get kids educated outside of public schools are worse off for all this. I do hope we get Christians to take up better-priced, quality education on a larger scale.

Homeschooling is the other option, but I'm also a firm believer in the maxim that it takes a village to raise a kid. This is true in two ways- one, that the society's morals invariably get transferred to the individual, regardless of the particular morals that his/her immediate circle (such as parents) imparts to the person. Secondly, this influence of the society is not just inevitable, but desirable; and therefore, it must be encouraged. Therefore, homeschooling must be coupled with a lot of social activity in order to be truly well-rounded. Kids listen to authority in a peer environment more than in a one-to-one situation- if the peers are inclined to listen. Good company begets good behaviour. At the same time we have a responsibility to ensure that the society in which we and our kids grow is influenced positively.

India is no more the land I saw when we were growing up, but back then, teen pregnancies were almost unheard of. Sexual morality was stronger, abstinence or temperance never seemed to anyone to be foolish options to prevent sexual diseases. Why was this society so conservative, and more importantly, why is this community not so conservative today? Back then the kids were just as precocious as they are today. But the society at the time clearly considered sexual promiscuity as shameful and sinful. The society influences us and a precocious kid may rebel at school in many ways, but still maintain a relatively high standard of sexual behaviour. Like it or not, the village does raise us and we had better understand it. Parents' influence over kids is not the only factor in the equation.

If that is the case, then why should we as Christians not try to pro-actively influence and change the society according to what we believe to be true? When a Christian public servant does this, is he/she in danger of going against the grain of Church-State separation? Well, all actions are motivated by a worldview- and each worldview has institutions that support and spearhead it. Our convictions must motivate our actions- a politician who claims otherwise is clearly in denial.

The incredibly unthinking response of some people to the developments in Maine- that it's allright to reduce teen pregnancies by distributing contraceptives because kids who would choose abstinence would not be affected anyway- is flawed in its understanding of human nature and the significance of the village in raising a kid.

I hope this doesn't turn into a polarizing votebank in the elections although it would be interesting to see how the candidates respond to it. My concern is that they will end up politicizing morality- and the issue is sacrificed at the altar of political mileage.

Friday, October 12, 2007

The Age of Cacophony

PG Wodehouse once wrote in his 1952 novella 'Pigs have Wings', "silence had come like a poultice to heal the blows of sound." Each time I read that sentence I think of how true and incisive that is in my own life. I rarely watch television. Unlike the old days I don't like heated political debates any more either on TV or in person. It's not because I dislike being challenged in my views. There's actually nothing I like better than thinking through differing opinions and arriving at the truth, or often the 'why' of the 'what' that I do. It's sheer pleasure to put it in a few crisp words and realize the world of truth behind them. No, the reason I dislike debates, TV news and contentious discussions is because ours is not an age of reason, but one of soundbytes masquerading as reason.

Let's put this to test. What would you like to prove? Let's assume you would like to prove Jesus did not exist. There are a number of books out there that reject outright the historicity of Jesus, all of them considered less than scholarly by true experts in the field. See Wikipedia for details. But these books are not meant for people seeking the truth- they are meant for those who already want to believe Jesus did not exist. Some who oppose Christianity, some others who have a political agenda in trumping Jesus' historicity, others who are caught in behaviours considered sinful by Christians... the list could include many persuasions, but these all find fodder for their cannon in such books. Among these are people who are only casually looking and are prepared to be dismayed or shocked or set right- but they aren't hungry enough for the truth. These are the ones to whom soundbytes appeal more and more- and I think these are what most of us are, or are about to become. Instant news, instant knowledge, instant decisions on matters that have taken lifetimes for wise people to dwell on.

Let's assume that you want to prove that the crusades were misunderstood as acts of hatred, that in reality they were labours of love. Or, that the crusaders did not include at least some real Christians. Or, you want to justify the terror the British government and the East India Company unleashed on Indians by citing some scientific progress that came along in the wake of the industrial revolution that they passed along to India. Or, more far-fetched, you want to prove that the Nazi holocaust may have had a positive effect because it eventually produced the nation of Israel.. Or, assume you are someone who interprets all evil acts to have been 'worth it' because great people have been produced by them- Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, Solzhenitsyn. The more I see things on TV or in print, the more I'm convinced that all of it is possible. Anything you want to prove can be written or said- and people will believe it if it makes enough noise.

Thus an atheist calling his community of God-denyers 'the brights' appeals to people to trust them because they are intelligent and anyone who disagrees with them isn't. A homosexual rights activist equates his/her struggle to the civil rights movement and gains sympathy for the cause. A Hindu fundamentalist in India decries any silence on the part of a Muslim when a Hindu is murdered, and in the same breath justifies the murder of a Muslim by a Hindu as something that happens when minorities are appeased. An American nationalist is certain that anyone who does not fight the war on terror alongside the US is against the US, while their own sympathies are far away from terrorist attacks in faroff countries, especially those of the Third World.

I like Google News because I get to read one point of view and deliberately look for something that is opposed to that view. It's possible to get the truth somewhere in between- if you look hard enough. I like Wikipedia because, though it may be biased, its discussion pages contain real debate on arriving at the truth. I truly hate TV because it commands us what to think. Take the recent Ann Couter controversy on Jews vs. Christians.

Coulter claimed that Christians were perfected Jews, and that its not a hateful comment because Christians think of themselves that way and do not force Jews to become as they are. Her host on CNBC, Donnie Deutsch, was outraged and offended as he is Jewish. He felt this was anti-Semitic. Coulter clarified that she meant Christians consider the New Testament and the Old Testament to be true, while the Jews do not believe the New Testament. Deutsche, instead of responding to that, said, "You said - your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth."

Now there is a public outcry for Coulter to be banned from TV. I really do not have a stake in this one way or another. But consider this for a moment. We all know that Ann Coulter has courted controversy all through her current career. Deutsche behaves like a typical talk show host- all soundbytes and no reason. Regardsless of how thoughtless Ann may have sounded, Christians consider Christianity as the logical extension of Judaism; they also believe that simply stopping at Judaism is not enough. To say that Christians are perfect is going overboard and certainly arrogant-sounding; but in our age of political correctness saying anything at all about one faith comparing favourably against another is unacceptable and persumably leads to violence.

We must remember that in the minds of TV's spin doctors all of this selective- for instance it doesn't (they presume) lead to violence if an atheist mocks theism, or the Hindu American Foundation mocks Christianity but fights textbook material in the US on Hinduism because they perceive the material to be offensive, or a Muslim in Saudi Arabia discrimnates against Hindus or Jews. It all depends on the context. The loudest soundbyte wins. There is no reasoning through the existential questions we face; we just want to see a good fight and set the winner up as we see fit.

What happens in this age of cacophony when truth is hard to find and the truth-speaker has to make himself heard above the din of voices? It's tougher, of course, especially for a Christian. You see attacks on the message and the messengers of the Gospel everywhere- some of it caused due to fallen pastors, others due to specious claims made by the contentious. Now more than ever it's time to let God be God, and realize that the mission to proclaim the Truth is first and foremost God's mission. If it can't be heard, it will always touch people the way it's always touched them- not through soundbytes but by experience. Perhaps this is what Simone Weil meant when she said truth needs to be experienced and not heard; only then does it become truth to the hearer. Remember Chesterton's words:

The Convert
After one moment when I bowed my head
And the whole world turned over and came upright,
And I came out where the old road shone white,
I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.

The sages have a hundred maps to give
That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
They rattle reason out through many a sieve
That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
And all these things are less than dust to me
Because my name is Lazarus and I live.

Thirst No More


In Jesus' interactions with the woman at the well in the Gospel of John chapter 4, we find that the one who drinks the living water Jesus gives him shall never thirst; rather, the living water will become in him a wellspring of water springing up to everlasting life.


About a decade ago, in a church in New Delhi, a preacher talked about the fact that we continue to thirst after having tasted Jesus. He clarified that this is a thirst to have more and more of Him. The church being a charismatic one, he insisted that this meant being filled with the Holy Spirit with the mystical, almost tangibly cognitive experience it brings. The assurance that we will never thirst again, he clarified, meant that we will never lack the source for the water (my paraphrasing here- I've forgotten the exact words he used).


If a non-charismatic congregation were to be asked to clarify this, they may concur that the thirst to have more of Him in their lives is persistent- they may not agree on the precise way in which they are filled with the Holy Spirit, but they would agree that the thirst is present in their struggle with sin on a daily basis, in the leading of God on important decisions, in His word that refreshes their minds and hearts.


In a magnificent passage, Jill Carattini, senior associate writer at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, writes about the three stages of our experience with God (Second Naïveté). She writes that we initially experience the stories of creation, God's presence, provision and love as children and see God as the great adventurer who leads us through a great story, we see God at the centre of the universe, with everything else including ourselves surrounding Him. In the second stage we are clouded by the disturbing and disharmonious skepticism of the world around us which pressures us to live for ourselves, quesion God and puts us at the centre with God and others around us. The dissonance between these two stages is great as these are two different worldviews. The third stage that some of us experience is bigger than we know how to tell as God once again occupies the centre as we come to know the Person of Christ behind the Word that we came to hear as children. She writes:


Like God's response from the whirlwind to a questioning, anguished Job--"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?"--we rediscover the one at the center, and it isn't ourselves. In this stage of second naiveté, the Bible can be engaged with awareness and imagination, and a greater sense of devotion, because we have come once again to see the God to whom it points.

I think this passage captures nicely the difference between the existential angst keenly felt by the skeptic (the Thirst) and the desire to know Jesus more and more (the Longing). One is a cry for help, the other is an experience of a relationship, the difference between them being profound. The renewal of our minds by God's Word and His Spirit are ongoing processes and form the wellspring of water welling up to everlasting life, in turn flowing out and quenching others' thirst as well.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Winds of Change in Burma

Burma's military dictatorship has so far reacted with less ferocity than expected at the massive pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks and nuns. While the world has pretty unanimously voiced its indignation at whatever violence the government has inflicted on the protesters, and puppet master China has called for restraint, one gets the feeling that the worst is yet to come. Daw Ang San Suu Kyi who has been a prisoner of conscience for a long time, said many years ago that it is fear, not power, that corrupts. When you fear losing power, you become corrupt. As of now the Burmese government is repressive because it fears its people.

What is interesting in the question of Burma is the attitudes of other countries. China has long supported the military rulers in Burma. Having unleashed violence on its own people in 1989, China knows well that civil uprisings are tough and has always encouraged Burma with military and economic aid. Besides China has always counted Burma as a hedge against India. A democratic Burma has no value as a hedge.

India has always been supportive of the pro-democracy movement in Burma. Recently though the thinking in New Delhi has shifted considerably. It is as though India has grown tired of playing the pacifist and renounced its moral high horse position. Today Indian policy toward Burme is one of realpolitik, of curbing the influx of narcotics and arms from Burma into India's volatile North East, rife as it is with Chinese propaganda. India, though supportive of democracy, has been developing economic relationships with Burma, and engaging them in dialogue, thereby winning the government over to crackdown on the narcotics and arms trade. And to make it clear from the outset, to me this is the best bet from both a practical and humane angle. I will explain why shortly.

The ASEAN has also been engaging Burma in trade, admitting the country into its association in 1997. The Philippines recently decried the violence in Burma, surprisingly and unprecedently upping the ante against the military rule. But in general these nations have not imposed sanctions on Burma like the West has.

The West has imposed sanctions on Burma and has reached out to Burma's neighbours to do the same. The sanctions have had no effect as China has supported Burma mightily through thick and thin. Besides, India, realizing late that its interests in the region are compromised by the sanctions, and knowing that a foothold in the energy-rich nation is essential to meet its exploding demand for energy, is involved in a race with China to secure its place in Burma. The South East nations have siezed the opportunity to trade with Burma in the face of Western sanctions. At the same time, the West has not done anything in Burma other than the ineffective sanctions. Their focus has been on the Middle East and Latin America.

Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' theory posits that the Western world acts in its own interests- a fact borne out by numerous incidents. Individuals within the Western world are independent agents and hold their own opinions, but their governments always act in their own interests. Thus they may turn a deaf ear to massacres in Srebrenica, but act quickly in Cuba or Nicaragua. They may support military rulership in Pakistan and decry the same thing in Burma.

The West also tried to influence other nations and cultures with its line of thinking. Take Russia, for instance. Pressured to alienate Iran, Russia does not want to create an unfriendly neighbour. There is no toeing the Western line there. Unlike the West, these Asian/Eurasian nations do not usually cry themselves hoarse about repressive nations that the West supports, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, because they are not united in their opinions and/or they do not want to compromise their own relationship with these nations. Thus the US states freely that India and Pakistan are both allies, but the fact remains that Pakistan is ruled by a dictator who initiaited a war with India and whose nation is clearly in the wrong as far as exporting terrorism to India is concerned. The recent revelations of nuclear technology transfer from Pakistan to North Korea have rattled the West enough to censure Pakistan, but this bears out the fact that democracy outside of the West interests the West only when it is beneficial to the West. If a dictatorship is similarly beneficial then the West usually supports it. In China's case there has been recently a turn of events- some call it political maturity, others call it the result of affluence or economic integration with the world. China could and did ignore world opinion on a lot of matters in the past. The massacre at Tianenmen square was an example. Its actions today are markedly more benign. Could this be India's nuclear capability? Could it be that world opinions matter now for attracting investment in China, especially now that India and other nations have become as hungry and ready for it? Could it be that Beijing is accomplishing a facelift, of which its newly gleaming cities and the Olympics next year are examples? For whatever reason, one finds that China reacts considerably differently to events such as the Maoist threat in Nepal and North Korean nuclear ambitions. So it is with the protests in Burma. This represents an opportunity for the West to push their agenda (at least a little) in some of these nations.

What about Burma? Or specifically what can India and the US do (separately) about Burma? India cannot march in and crush the junta as the consequences of a sustained war and a proxy-war with China are unthinkable. Already the lessons from Sri Lanka are fresh in Indian minds. India cannot impose sanctions as they are not only ineffective but counter-productive to the confidence building measures and economic relationship fostered painstakingly over the last decade. India cannot as its policy arm militants as it has been itself a victim of such export of terror. India can incentivize a return to democracy and freedom by establishing economic cooperation. Besides the shabby treatment of Daw Ang San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement by the junta has always worsened when it felt threatened. Democracy imposed from the outside is never a true democracy, as Solzhenitsyn recently remarked about the US remaking of the Iraqi government.

The US is the most serious player in this equation. In its war against terror the US has a moral responsibility to oppose regimes such as Pakistan and Burma, but experience with other Asian countries must have taught the US that democracy imposed from without is of no use. The US too must begin constructive dialogue with Burma. It must help Burma move on from being an international pariah to economic powerhouse that it is entitled to be, given its rich resources and people. A nation like Singapore is a US ally without being a true democracy- why not Burma? What prevents this is (1) US fear over Chinese influence on Burma; and (2) the prevailing mistrust in Burma towards the US. These are tough to overcome, but absolutely necessary to create a peaceful Burma. The US must take the lead in bringing both the junta and the pro-democracy leaders to the negotiating table. As all dictatorships do, Burma's will fall one day. To prevent the spillage of blood in the meantime, there needs to be a give and take as Burma becomes stronger and integrated with the world.

One can hope for the pro-democracy movement to succeed in Burma, and if it does, it is good news indeed. Hopefully it will result in a good plan and action towards democracy and join India as the only true grassroots democracies in Asia. If it doesn't, the best other nations can do is to help integrate that nation with the rest of the world.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Security Breaches in IT

Interesting new item here-

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/ct_accenture.html

The state of Connecticut is suing technology consulting company Accenture over the loss of a data tape containing personal information on 58 taxpayers and nearly 460 state bank accounts.

"Accenture deserves censure -- to be held accountable for allowing valuable secret data to be stolen and putting at risk state taxpayers, bank accounts and purchasing cards," Blumenthal said.

"Transferring this data to Ohio is inexplicable and inexcusable," Blumenthal said. "Confidential information can have the value of cash -- especially in the wrong hands -- but Accenture treated it like scrap paper. Its breach of contract and negligence exposed state taxpayers to identity theft and other harm."



A $98 million contract to develop this payroll, inventory and accounting system ought to have been better monitored for security. Even with security measures that are robust and mature in place such as at most Indian or global IT giants' offshore delivery centers,occasional slip-ups such as the breach at MPhasis are a major concern for clients. Incidents such as the Accenture-Connecticut case point to such breaches even when the information is kept onshore; and call into question giving away contracts upwards of $5 million without ensuring necessary conditions against breach, such as the inadmissibility of storage devices in associates' laptops, policies against accessing client resources except under monitoring or in a 'time and material' billing without attached SLAs and so on.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Christian Charity in Jane Austen's Works

Christian morals have come from so many writers in such varied forms, that each reader has his or her opinion about what an acceptable form should be. CS Lewis writes his Narnia novels in an unmistakably allegorical form; JRR Tolkien's Rings are much more subtle and relies so much on the myths of his culture's Germanic and Norse roots to make points that square with the Christian ethos. Johanna Spyri portrays the effect of Christianity and a child's innocence on hardened hearts in Heidi, notably through that life-transforming, astonishing little parable of the prodigal son. Patricia St. John's very similar work, Treasures of the Snow sees itself as a children's novella that ties together concepts like God's sovereignty, beneficence, power to transform lives, heal relationships and sickness.

Among these great writers also stands tall Jane Austen, as this article by Dr. Jerram Barrs titled 'Jane Austen- Great Christian Novelist' explains. His explanation covers these five points:

1. Austen was no romantic- I find this very true. Unlike the Bronte sisters who have criticized Austen for her gentle treatment of her characters' personalities (compared to the molten passions of their own novels' characters), Austen treated relationships with wisdom and a lightness that settles nicely on them so the reader participates with the author in giving them a circumference that he or she can relate to. Austen never gives us a climactic fairytale ending or a Hardy-esque bitter end (which I believe is another form of romanticism- for such ends are ironical only because expectations are set wrongly). Her endings satisfy because they are right, not because they are what the protagonists have desired all along. Indeed in Sense and Sensibility, as Dr. Barrs explains, the effects of unbridled passion are demonstrated to be unsatisfying.

2. Austen literary ability was outstanding- Dr. Barr doesn't elaborate on this, but of course this is borne out by her time-tested works. Who would have expected them to remain at number 5 on a modern best-seller list of novels in the mid-1990s?

3. Austen sketches characters intimately- Once again, absolutely right. The humour, the wisdom, the unanswered questions, the courtesy- all of these give such depth to them, one is struck by the fact that the author doesn't get carried away by any one of these characteristics.

4. Austen's vision of moral and spiritual uprightness was profound- Countless instances prove this. In Emma, Mr. Knightley admonishes Emma Woodhouse with righteous indignation when she has thoughtlessly criticized Miss Bates. Miss Bates deserved Emma's compassion because she was poor. Emma's remorse that follows and the course of events after this set a moral tone to the novel that reaches out to us without seeming pontificatory. Mr. Knightley's ability to tolerate Frank Churchill's apparent courting of Emma is also lauded, as being typical of the parfait knight (as the play on name correctly indicates). Similarly in Sense and Sensibility, Elinor Dashwood similarly goes through a courteous and gracious if confused time of playing the understanding friend to Edward Ferrars who she hears is set to marry someone else. This is considered the 'sensibility' part of the title, and similarly lauded.

5. Austen wrote with a humour that also typifies many of her characters' personalities. This sets her apart from so many female authors of her time and subsequent ages. A modern novel like the God of Small Things for instance has the kind of humour about it that is ironical, vaguely forboding or sarcastic. In contrast, Austen's works have genuine humour that is beneficent and hearty without being annoying or foolish.

Among the other Christian writers, I believe Austen holds a special place in her treatment of everyday relationships, social equations, courtesy and self-control that flow from the considered Christian life.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

To be Known and Loved

It's a truism that history repeats itself. Often this adage is used in the context of people repeating mistakes that have been made often. The sins that easily ensnare us have been around from the beginning of human existence and written about in every creed, story, self-help book and court of law. We have been warned and taught at a young age to eschew lust, pride, greed and so on- but we are prone to fall victim to this troika as easily as we ever have been.

The latest celebrity life to be torn to shambles doesn't make us sit and reflect much nowadays, does it? One would be hard pressed to actually take a celebrity life, at least here in the US, and think about a life that has been relatively stable. Infidelity, divorce, suicidal tendencies, drugs-rehab-drug-drinks routine, parent-child clashes, property disputes, disputes over prenuptial agreements... the list goes on. The so-called sexual revolution and the enlightenment that followed it in the sixties were supposed to have freed us, but at long last we realize (even if we would not admit it) that there is no such thing as free love. Love demands a price of commitment and self-control. But this is nothing new. It has been repeated ad-nauseam through the ages. We are too busy to listen or too uncaring to slow down. What CS Lewis called chronological snobbery- the feeling that our time and age has the answers that previous ages did not- has blinded us to reality. We have never been a more confused mass of people about any topic under the sun- sexuality, civil rights, terrorism, crim and punishment, the status of the human embryo and the sanctity of life- the list goes on.

Coming back to the celebrity theme- going by the recent experiences of Owen Wilson (suicide) and Britney Spears (several traumatic incidents), is it wrong to aspire to be famous? Does fame necessarily bring a cup of woes? That would be a pretty categorical statement. A long time ago, when I was still an unbeliever, I read one of Dr. Wayne Dwyer's self-help books in which he decried approval-seeking behaviour. He exhorted the reader to not be bound by others' opinions about ourselves, be they our parents or siblings or coworkers. In reality, this is not entirely put to practice- just as history repeats itself, noone listens to advice like this. Indeed, I doubt if even Dr. Dwyer could do this on a 100 percent effective scale. Advice has been given as copiously and variedly, as Paul Johnson writes about Bertrand Russell's output of advice in his book Intellectuals, on topics ranging from naturalistic evolution to toothpaste. Very few listen. Fewer advisers are even worth listening to. That's why Jesus cannot be categorized as simply a moral teacher. He clearly stated what the human condition is all about. He teaches: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matthew 15:19). And as Jeremiah says: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9). Christ aims to have our natural man die and his character take over our lives in its purity and reconciled status with the Father. Until then all the laws of this world or the world to come will not change us.

The Bible talks about being known by God and rewarded by Him as our goal. All over Scripture is the exhortation to keep your prayer and your good deeds from other people but let them be between youself and your Father in heaven. He is the one who calls you "good and faithful servant". In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks about the glorious time when "we shall know just as we are known", not "as in a mirror but face to face". Could it be that our desire to be valued and known is a genuine desire? That it has been misdirected, and needs to be shifted in its focus to the One who put it there?

Friday, September 7, 2007

Summer of Discontent

Apple is now busy apologizing to iPhone owners over a price cut from $599 to $399 in 2 months. People who had rushed to buy the phone are chagrined about forking out $200 because of their eagerness to try the product out. Apple is trying to ease the situation by offering $100 store credit to early adopters. Yesterday an associate mentioned he'd bought a TomTom GPS navigation system last year for $700. Today its price is $399 and he is shaken by the price drop of almost 50 percent. A few months ago a sales trainer at our company gave us a lecture about early adopters of technology in the case of consumer electronics. He gave us his personal example. Being an enthusiast for all things electronic he is the kind of guy who would rush to buy a product when it hits the stands. Very possibly he has the iPhone but I will check and confirm with him. At the extreme end of this spectrum are the guys who wait and wait and wait until it has become so mature that it would be ludicrous to be without it. In this category falls this sales trainer's dad. Both these categories of extremes represent a small portion of the market for vendors. There are different categorizations in between them, but the overwhelming majority come in right after the early adopters who are willing to take some risks. Immediately after this, another large category that leans more to the later adopters' side but still more eager to buy than that miniscule category of sales-dampeners. I fall in that catgory, I think. The middle two broad categories are the product's mainstay. In the earlier adopters of the two the product is gaining acceptance and is growing in market share. In the later adopters the product is mature and stable and slowly begins to decline towards the end.

Of course all of this seems to imply that there is a long life cycle for a product. Today the last category of very late adopters and possibly even my category of later than average adopters would seem to be irrelevant, given the pace of innovation and competition. By the time the prices decline it has been 1 year and the market is competitive, fractious and another 'car that flies' begins to peep ominously from the horizon.

This article on the Apple set me thinking: It's Official: Apple is the New Microsoft

The author, Mike Elgan of Computerworld, whose family of 4 owns 12 iPods laments about Apple's unfair business practices such as bundling iTunes with iPod and iPod software, and the consequences it brings when you uninstall the clunky iTunes. In addition he laments that with the iPhone new monopolistics tendencies from Apple have manifested themselves- charging double the price for ringtones, non-portability of tunes from iPods to other players, needing the user-unfriendly iTunes for all downloads- for songs, videos and ringtones. He compares Apple to Microsoft's early reputation as a bully, and claims that Microsoft was better still as you could reformat your computer and install Linux in it, but you can't do that with an iPod. He further laments that where Apple's Mac O/S was the innovator and Microsoft Windows the copycat, today Microsoft's Zune came up with innovations like Wi-Fi 1 year before the iPod did.

It hurts me to say this, but Mike, you should have known this from the very beginning. Contrary to my nature I downloaded iTunes in early 2004 although I did not have an iPod (and still do not have one, much less do I intend to buy one). I paid up the money required to burn 3 CDs full of songs and uninstalled the application right away because it does not let the songs play on Windows Media Player. Besides the iTunes application was clumsy, clunky, unfriendly and automatically assigned default player privileges to Quicktime. I do not miss those songs- I rarely listen to them anyway except in my car.

It's true that competition makes an economy run and enthusiastic customers are needed, but to be contended is a great thing. Apple is a pampered company because people first lapped up its simple concept of putting music into a hard drive that you can walk around with. Is that such a great concept? An MP3 player did this a long time ago, albeit with fewer songs. Today there are so many features associated with portal digital music players that these are truly products that stand out, compared to iPod version 1.0. Especially with the iPhone hitting the market it is a product that one cannot ignore. My gripe though is this: other equally innovative products hardly get a second glance, such as Zune and Sansa, thus further perpetutating the myth of Apple superiority. Today NBC crawls and begs at Apple's door to have flexibility on pricing its shows in iPod because of Apple's dominant status in music players. To date any success that can achieved by media companies in the portable media market is on iPods. This is sad and will continue unless the market gets back to its senses and teach Apple a thing about the other fish in the sea.

If not, simply be contended being trend-agnostic as I try to be. Eventually Apple will get to be less haughty and price its products more reasonably. Am I the only one who is silly enough to resist the great Steve Jobs juggernaut? Apparently not. Here is Jonathan Weinberg writing from the UK in this excellent article: Are We Not Clever Enough to Withstand Apple's Spin ? In this he asks a question that has always hounded me; in capital letters, no less- DO YOU REALLY NEED IT? Good question.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Decoding the Numbers on Poverty

Business Columnist Steve Pearlstein writes in the Washington Post on the latest statistics on US poverty. This is an insightful column in summing up the perspectives from the right and the left.

He acknowledges that both sides have valid arguments but they are carried too far. Yes, the less wealthy have historical reasons as to why they remain that way (slavery) and present reasons (lack of opportunity or resources). And yes, it's also due to Government doing things the wrong way (welfare) and lack of discipline. While one places the emphasis on the responsibility of the society to uplift the poorer sections of itself, the other exhorts the individuals to rise above themselves. Pearlstein also talks about the fact that a very poor individual may find herself givig up any idea of economic or social resurgence because it seems beyond her reach. A $100 bill found on the street, for instance, will not pay for college, so she may blow it up on various intoxicants. The logic outrages most people, but this is true. I've seen this among the slum-dwellers in India and I see it here in the US. The individual is responsible primarily for his upliftment. At the same time, the society cannot sit by and let these people decline. Welfare as we know it may have alleviated some misery but it isn't going to solve the problem effectively. There is merit to the individual emphasis argument.

Interestingly the only non-argument that Pearlstein comes up with is that in order to motivate people to work or learn or pull themselves together into social behaviours that will keep them out of poverty, they need to get into a financial sweetspot between $24,000 and $96,000 median income. Beyond this maxima or minima, he concludes, complacence may set in.

Christianity has of course always focused on the individual. Even the society's role in encouraging the weaker brethren is primarily a role of the individuals within the society, not the role of legislation or force. As a democratic society though, the US legislates (in theory) what the majority of individual citizens want. And hence, it is an indication of the individual inclination to improve the lot of people around the individual. Here lies the rub (as far as I'm concerned): the American dream, the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness", the motivation to succeed, achieve, earn and spend is often contrary to the ideal to giving money away to someone else. On the one hand we want individuals to behave well, have social, economic and civic goals; on the other we encourage them to be selfish. That dilemma cannot be solved through economic legislation. The human heart needs to be changed. All Christians know that.

What can we do to make sure the Government does the right things to improve the capability or propensity of the people to achieve, succees, learn and be productive? Surely more by providing tools rather than the finished product. The finished products will leave us (as is happening now) with net consumers, not producers. Education is compulsory but sub-par in several poor neighbourhoods, the investment into teaching far less than needed. Opportunities for business reserved for minorities and historically under-utilized businesses, but no pro-active measures to impart business training to them or anyone else. There are no targeted programs for the poorer sections for these issues. No proper counseling for their emotional and mental trauma. A society that cares should count all of this as it legitimate cost in enabling all of us to succeed. Above all, as with 'reservations' in India, affirmative action in the US is more politicized than it is scientifically administered. Is there propoer measurement for how well it is succeeding? Is there a specific timeline for achieving metrics that are defined to eradicate the effect of past injustices? Is there a timeline to phase out affirmative action in the future? If it goes on indefinitely, it will only serve to create a pampered, net-consumer class of people who uneduc ated, un-motivated, uncultured wastrels (no offence meant, here- I'm a minority myself). Such a directionless program will also eventually create reverse discrimination and foster a new inequality.

The same goes for India. The issue of reservations is so shabbily discussed by both ends of the argument, and the rea concerns seldom addressed. And to make it worse, it is purely political. There is no other motivation to it and this makes it more dangerous than the US situation.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Bihar- India's Final Frontier

You can talk till the cows come home about India's cities, companies and people making progress in many fields. We always have another take from other quarters on our progress. The site of ancient civilizations, learning and cultures, the state of Bihar today is pitiable.

Sometime back there was the shocking news of a baby girl abandoned in rural AP that I had posted here. This new video on Bihar cops assisting a mob to attack a jewel thief is equally shocking.

Warning: This video shows a violent situation which may not be suitable for all to see




We have all known for long that the long arm of the Indian judiciary in Bihar is no match for the 'justice' meted out by the public. For an outsider to Bihar the extend of that brutality is not usually clear except from stories Biharis tell us. Now it's there for us to see and it's terrifying to see what a mob can 'democratically' do and actually think it's doing the right thing. Is there a stronger case for a impartial moral authority?

Friday, August 24, 2007

Life in a Metro- Confusion of a Postmodern Society

Despite innumerable disappointments we still watch Hindi movies once in a while because people around us raise our hopes about the quality and depth of the new movies. While we have seen that there is a trend upward, none have so far been convincing enough. The reason is this: Hindi movies, even when they deal with serious subjects, are prone to project image over substance. Thus in movies made by ad-men (as several are these days) there are slick production values, Armani-suited, grim, business-like, svelte people (who may look more convincing than the saas-bahu dramas of old), but this is all there is. The story is well-told, the music and songs toned down or placed in the background instead of the actors belting them out; what I find missing is the idea of the movie- what ties it all together. Of course there are exceptions. The Namesake as with all Mira Nair movies had a subtle but very present message about Indian life in the US. But if there is anything one could remark about the message of the movie Life in a Metro, which we watched yesterday, is that it is existentialist. It has pop-rock songs that are sung by minstrels that appear on the streets at major milestones in the story ( a departure from the usual 'musical' genre where protagonists sing in order to convey what is in their heart) and less in-your-face emotion, but as to the actual message, it falls flat.

For a Christian this movie serves only to be shocked at the absence of any moral compass in the lives of the protagonists, much less an idea of what may be beneficial to their lives. The film portrays young, upwardly mobile middle class Indians living in Mumbai as having extra-marital affairs, casual sex (no overt acts are portrayed on screen) and completely lacking any guiding principle to navigate them through life. A young man asks a married woman if she loves her husband and if she doesn't she should just "follow her heart", as if her heart is somehow the standard of moral uprightness or lasting joy. A 20-something girl calls her elder sister on the phone to ask if it's okay to have pre-marital sex, and the sister's response is a question: "Are you sure you know what you are doing?" No guidance, there. No surprise, as the elder sister is herself caught in an extra-marital affair. The calls ends, as the younger girl tells her, "Don't worry about it- I need to go." A cheating husband justifies his infidelity by reminding himself that there is no emotional attachment to his affair and if it hurts noone it should be okay. Of course, the movie does portray the events as being hurtful to him and others around him, but it still doesn't show us a way forward. The most believable character is an everyman with a roving eye who is fond of a feminist who sees him as a friend, but he is willing to go with an arranged wedding his family proposes. To his feminist friend's question as to how he could love someone he has never met, he says, "Well, you need to start loving in order to have love. So why not do that after you marry?" This is the closest this movie gets to any actual thinking. I liked that line, but the movie does not expand on this theme at all. It just gets buried under heaps of nonsense that follows. In the end the cheating wife and husband reunite for whatever reason (perhaps the Indian customs they had been accustomed to forces them into that), and we see the young lover roaming the streets. The movie sympathizes with him and nothing more is said or done about it. The focus is so much on sex and infidelity though the sexual acts are not portrayed on screen. Commitment in marriage is portrayed as a burden to be borne and not as an act of nobility. There is no reason given as to why people are together except for the demands of the society, besides of course in some cases the "dictates of the heart".

Several years ago and possibly even now, Indians thought Americans were in general footloose people with broken marriages and uncontrolled passions. This was primarily a thinking that came right out of Hollywood movies. Alma and I are in the position of thinking that about Indian city-dwellers. The past ten years have seen a dramatic shift in values in India, especially among the youth. We get a glimpse of this in the movies, but the jury is still out there on how realistic they are. While I'm sure they are embellished, they also portray something of the truth. This movie could not have done well 10 years ago as most people would have found it unbelievable and less than proper to exhibit in movie halls. Today the acceptance of the movie makes one wonder, if this is where India is headed. If that is indeed the case, it's more dangerous than we can imagine. In the US the objective moral values from Christian faith and thinking have a profound influence on society. In India I have not yet found such a compelling moral compass. We need a voice crying in the wilderness to make straight the way of the Lord.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Independence Day Insights (or Shadows of the Indian Economic Miracle)

I recently came across this article in the Telegraph (UK) about Phusi, a young girl whose poverty kept her from India's economic miracle and eventually led to her murder by her frustrated mother. This is from the prolific pen of Peter Foster (his blog here), the South Asia correspondent of the Telegraph.

When I started reading this I was happy to see the disclaimer that stories trump statistics- a phrase which I thought was meant to caution India and not beat it with. Phusi's story brought tears to my eyes and I grieved for those that in my country the economic resurgence had not touched- until I reached the middle of the article.

Then the author turned to statistics. When it comes to statistics the way he plays around with it is either deliberately misleading or being ignorant of facts. The 1.3 million people employed in the IT industry are direct employees of IT companies- this industry creates a hardware industry, a construction industry, administrative, clerical, managerial and unskilled-labour type jobs that are usually contracted out (I know because I work for an IT company). The IT industry also provides for market capitalization that allows groups like the Tatas to give away just a little equity and bring in billions of dollars to buy firms like Corus. The IT industry also spawns the growth of the airline industry meaning more construction work and several other service industry type work.

While it's true that Phusi couldn't have found work outside of education, we are seeing more and more jobs being funneled out of India's growth industries. The mistake the author makes- and he is not alone in this- is presuming that the $50 billion IT industry is all we are rooting for. IT is only a conduit for growth, an excuse to develop infrastructure if you will, and an example to others that we can do better. In each field- whether politics, defence, manufacturing, negotiating with China, whichever- we get better and better partly as a result of this confidence.

That said, I still grieve for Phusi. Her death was a crying shame and a stark reminder of human sin more than anything else. It was not simply a result of our fast and unequal economic progress (as Foster seems to imply) but clearly of parental neglect. Criminal and dangerous behaviour needs to take the blame for itself and not blame it on poverty or lack of opportunity. Do all impoverished people behave like this? Of course not! I do hope more insightful articles than this come up when covering her story.

Happy 60th independence day, India! You may have miles to go before you sleep, but let noone belittle your accomplishments on this glorious day!

Monday, August 13, 2007

Matt Slick at the Atheists' Convention

Speaking of Matt Slick, he attended the 33rd annual Atheist Convention (April 5-7, 2007, Easter weekend) in Seattle, Washington, as he says on his website. Someone with a camera recorded a couple of his conversations with atheists. They're interesting to watch:



The above is a conversation about God's judgment. The clip below is Matt talking to an atheist about objective moral values. The atheist walks away from him.


Winsome Debate

The bigger they boast the louder they burst. The Rational Response Squad that made headlines a few months ago by debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort on ABC, 'moderated' by Martin Bashir, also debated Christian apologist Matt Slick a few weeks ago. Prior to the debate they had proclaimed on their website that they would now 'own' Slick as they did their previous opponents. But the debate was not broadcast on their website as their other debates had been. Perhaps this was only to be expected since Kelly from the RRS appeared on Matt Slick's radio show, and Matt Slick would naturally own the rights to broadcast. But strangely enough, there is no word on their website proclaming how they 'owned' Slick. Of course, this is not so strange to people who tuned in to the debate, now published on Slick's website as an MP3 as well as on Youtube in 6 parts, which reveals how deftly he demolished the atheists' arguments.

Here is the MP3 link (20 MB).

Or, the Youtube links:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Slick demonstrated that to categorically state a negative is to invite a burden of proof on the negative. To say one is agnostic-atheistic (as Kelly paraphrased her position) would mean considering the proofs offered by a theist and either rejecting or accepting them. To say they are not convincing enough would then warrant an explanation that is objectively true and validated. Kelly tried to take the usual route of saying that atheism was the default starting position. This argument is clever up to a point. When an atheist argues, like Kelly did, that a new born baby doesn't hold a view of a creator, she probably means that the baby cannot conceive of such an idea. Without stooping to clarify this, Slick simply asked her to prove that the baby is by default an atheist. When she could not substantiate this, he said, 'So you simply assume that it is the default position.' Good line of thinking there. After all an atheist could equally claim that the baby doesn't believe in parents either, right? But how would she know? She need to prove it if she makes a categorical statement. The baby is not an atheist- the baby simply has not considered the question in the same manner we consider it as adults. Tp prove that the baby has considered this and rejected this is ridiculous.

Kelly then went on to state that religion is a social construct. Again, the burden of proof was on her. To make this claim she needed evidence- which, of course, she didn't possess.

Though the RRS didn't mention a word of this serious defeat and (surely) the deflation of their sizeable egos on their website, their discussion forum had loyal RRS fans venting their frustration against Slick, claiming he was relying on semantics rather than logic. Listen to the debate and you will see it is the other way around. Slick did trip up Kelly with language only when she was being infantile, and trying to insult him rather than prove her point.

Above all else, Slick was respectful to the end and confirmed this with Kelly by asking her if he had treated her fairly. She sort of miffled and said, 'it was fine' (grudgingly, I thought). Good thing too, as RRS and their ilk have a habit of trying to make Christian debaters seem vicious in their descriptions. Besides, their own behaviour when they invited Slick previously to debate 4 of them at once on their show was completely mannerless to say the least.

All said and done, this should not be a source of vapid triumphalism for the Christian. It's good to see that our position has been put forward and defended logically. But the victory in debate is a minor one compared to the victory of leading an unbeliever to the Lord. As Slick told Kelly, 'I can't persuade you to believe anything. I can offer you proof, but whether you accept that proof and believe is upto you.'

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Deconstructing Wipro

We've heard it before- complaints about Indian companies not making big ticket US acquisitions, excelling in infrastructure services but not going the whole hog by providing hosting, being too risk averse and India-centric, not being global enough to establish high end services locally in the US, Europe and Japan.

One wonders what to make of Wipro. Wipro's acquisition of Infocrossing for $600 million out of cash reserves of $750 million changes the paradigm. With the acquisition Wipro gets complementary services (hosting) through 5 US datacenters, 900 US employees and reasonably well known senior management from the US (who are also not originally Indian). Will this pay off? I hope so. This was after all Vivek Paul's dream for Wipro- to make it a $ 4 billion company by 2002- half of it coming in through acquisitions.

This is another positive fall-out of the rising Rupee. Time to buy. When and if the Rupee falls again it will pay off much more. Wipro is also not interested in restructuring its acquisitions. Which is why its talks with other big US companies to acquire them have not taken off. The 900 Infocrossing employees will remain on board. The 12 percent net margin is much smaller compared to Wipro's (mid 20s), but Wipro is planning to move a lot of existing work into the datacenters which are now run mid-capacity, a move which should improve their net margins substantially. All in all a satisfying acquisition. I hope Wipro and Infocrossing have the apetites to digest it.

Friday, August 3, 2007

Bourne Again!

The Bourne Ultimatum was released today. I'm unlikely to see it in a theater as the presence of a 3 year old has made Alma and me very estranged from theaters, but you can be sure that I will rent the DVD as soon as it gets released. I watched both the earlier Jason Bourne episodes more than 5 times each and learned to enjoy them like fine wine. I like the fact that Bourne is tough and determined (though he was trained to be en effective assassin), that he is the archetypical DIY sort of guy (unlike the Bond/Rambo/Ethan Hunt/ big guns/bombs/cars/women types), outwitting the institutional types with streetsmartness and everyday tools. He doesn't give in to wisecracks or svelte puns, just does what he does because he needs to do it. Anyone in sales would appreciate his tenacity in picking up a phone directory to call the hotels in town to locate Julia Stiles. He is a bare knuckles one-on-one, fearsome fighter; and he doesn't stay around to receive accolades. He is also intensely soul-searching and trying to look back beyond where his amnesia left him. We feel his pain and want him to succeed for his own sake. His car chases don't want to satisfy us with gravity-defying acrobatics, they just happen because he drives very well. No gadgets or fancy cars, just talent. In 'The Bourne Identity' he drives a subcompact through the streets and alleyways of Paris, outwitting police cars and motorcycles because of his dexterity at the wheel alone. In 'The Bourne Supremacy' an old Russian taxi car is all he has against cops and an SUV driving assassin. In The Bourne Ultimatum I hear there is a scene in which he rides a motocycle up a concrete wall. This wasn't computer wizardry, a stuntman actually did it. That's what I prefer.

So much for the lyrical prose. Ninety percent of the reviews out there for all three films are positive, 'nuff said. I'm waiting for the movie to hit the small screen.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Answer to a Skeptic

There are numerous questions one would answer to skeptics when one holds to a conviction in a Faith. Some of them are asked again and again. Of all questions posed to Christians, none as I have found are so common and so sensitively juxtaposed as the question of a long history of evil by religious people. I have answered this to inquiring friends by way of logic, history, reasoning from the Bible and pointing to human nature as a root cause rather than religion. Still the questions keep coming and the answerer is weak from answering.

The older I get the more confident I am about God's faithfulness and the more cynical I am about human nature- the grand claims of nobility that lies within the human heart. In a way I'm a skeptic too. I'm a skeptic as to the motivations of the questioner after religion. Ten years of Christian life and detecting insincerity in questioners as well as in my own heart has compelled me to question our very intentions. Often we desire that God's will be not done- though as Christians we would not admit it to even ourselves. When answering unbelievers, I remind myself that regardless of the intention my answer must be consistent, logical, sensitive, compelling and interested. Secondly I must remind myself that it is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes a contrite spirit and a believing heart, not my words.

Here is journalist Dilip D'Souza's article on this subject, titled 'Why I am disillusioned with religion'. As I read this I thought to myself, 'Aren't the answers clear enough? Hasn't the world heard the apologetic of years past, in fact of over 2000 years why this happens?' Then I think to myself the many articles that this journalist has written, many of them noted for their sensitivity to the subject and sincerity of the cause. In fact even this article acknowledges the good that Christianity has displayed; and that the evil spawned has been from a minority of people.

To satisfy my urge to answer D'Souza, I decided to summarize my answer in 5 parts:

1. The dynamics of exclusive beliefs
2. Religion over irreligion
3. The dangers of being simply lukewarm
4. The nature of the human heart and alternate theories such as Maya.
5. The 4 questions each worldview needs to answer


1. The dynamics of exclusive beliefs

D'Souza's argument is not that Christianity's doctrine leads one to violence. Perhaps a case could made by more insincere inquirers that the Jewish people built their nation through war, but the sincere inquirer would note that Christianity forbids murder and Christ's example forbids conversion by force. D'Souza's point is that while there is good that Christianity has done there is also evil that Christians have committed. As he writes, "What else were those Crusades but a resort to the sword in the name of Christianity?" and "Richard (King Richard I) was a cruel man who ordered Jews killed in London, presided over a massacre in Cyprus while journeying to fight his Third Crusade, and had thousands of Muslim prisoners killed at Acre (then Akko) during the war. Such was his Christian kingliness."

If we Christians claim that he was not of the faithful, we have no way of proving we are right. After all God judges our hearts, and though our faith may be manifest in our works, we are not without sin. The Bible acknowledges the believer's fight against the world, the flesh and the devil. All we can say is that he wasn't acting from Christian character. But who among us is flawless? We need a better explanation for this contradiction if we believe that Christianity is indeed the Truth that joins us in communion with God.

Implicit in Dilip's question may be the question of exclusivity, why Christians exclude non-adherents in God's plan for salvation. This is in my view a make or break question. Unlike many other philosophies, Christianity is not an evolving religion. It may bear new interpretations for our day but it cannot be treated as a faith that can be added to. For instance when Christ says 'I'm the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Fther except by Me,' we cannot expand the criteria to accomodate our difficulties with exclusivity. This would make it something other than Christianity. The skeptic questions whether holding on to an exclusive faith is a good thing for us in the here and now. If it engenders prejudice and hatred toward others, then how could it possibly by a religion of Love? The Christian may answer that there are exclusivists who have loved sinners and hated their sin; that Christ's character and example point to the correct thinking in Christianity. But the skeptic remains unconvinced even when the Christian points to credible examples of Christian virtue among exclusivists. For insincere skeptic the good examples don't matter- they will find fault with any of these. For the sincere ones the scandals stand out more than the noble deeds. For them the crusades are the biggest stumbling block. Here we hit a roadblock. A sincere (I believe) skeptic like Dilip asks us why there should be evil at all, despite the prevalence of good among Christians. The presence of evil stands out glaringly. We need to move on to the next section.

2. Religion over irreligion

Let's take a step back and assess what evil each major world religion has done, and then what irreligion has done. By irreligion I mean people who advocate or instituted atheism as state policy.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are exclusivist religions, all Semitic. The evil perpetrated by their adherents have been well-documented through history. Dilip's article is pretty descriptive of some of them. The Dharmic religions- Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism- are not without their history of violence either: the wars of the Guptas, the Mauryas, et al look good in glorified national history texts, but in reality this must have been a horrendous shedding of blood: Asoka's disillusionment over the world surfaced after a violent battle, and the Hindu epics describe wars fought by warriors who were often favoured by the gods not for their moral incorruptibility but other factors such as their valour in battle and their devotional tapas toward these gods. We don't have much written history prior to the establishment of the Islamic sultanates in India (themselves often violent and predatory), but heroes such as Sivaji were no saints either, regardless of what popular opinion in India might have to say about it.

Animistic traditions, primitive religions, American Indian spirit-worship, nature worship- they are all replete with records of violent acts. So is religion something irredeemably violent, after all?

This brings us to the point to which atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, et al object vehemently- that the moral failure that irreligion brings is not simply a coincidence but a systemic flaw inherent in trading religion for humanism. The statistics are overwhelming. Josef Stalin, no friend to religion, has been held accountable for 20 million deaths by conservative estimates. Wikipedia states that the actual number could be anywhere between 3 and 60 million. Millions died of privation, the Ukranian famine, execution, torture and deportation to Siberia. In addition, much of his ire was directed against Jewish people, making this a 'religious' crime to some, but in reality part of a purge against all religion.

Mao Zedong's roster of such killings range between 2 and 5 million, with another 1.5 million sent to 'reform through labour' camps. Pol Pot, considered one of the worst mass murderers in modern history was supported by Mao in his extermination of one-fifth of his country's population (1.7 million). These were all influenced by Marxist theory and were activist atheists. Hitler's religion has been the subject of considerable debate. But consider these facts: he was raised Roman Catholic but as a schoolboy left the religion and never again attended Mass. He was critical of Chrstianity as he knew it but wanted to reinvent it instead of throwing it away- particularly as a way to reinforce anti-Semitic ideology. However he also made statements like "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together" and "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity" and "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

This article gives his pro and anti-Christian statements. The impression one get is that one cannot read his mind from his public statements. For him these statements were only the means to his end: that of establishing the supremacy of the Third Reich over the world. So what did he really believe? I can' say for sure, but one thing as the article states, is clear: Hitler was a materialist and rationalist. He worshipped himself. In other words he believed that Man was the measure of God, specifically one man- himself. I believe that this ideology is at the heart of atheism. This article says: "Frederick Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher who coined the phrase "God is dead" had a big effect on the worldview of Adolf Hitler, who took some of Nietzsche's more strident writings as his philosophical road map when he launched World War II (Hitler even gave copies of Nietzsche's books to Mussolini). "

Together these tyrants have been responsible for more deaths than other killings in the last 20 centuries put together. Could one could that irreligion is by nature violent? I would say that most atheists by and large are not violent people. But my point is that the difference in these individuals is in scale, not in kind. Irreligion does engender indifference to certain values: in history this has manifested most commonly as erotomania (the love of pleasure) or megalomani (the love of power), both eschewed or held in balance by most religions.


3. The danger of being lukewarm

My grandma was always suspicious of committed believers. Her dad was one, and though his character has been considered Christ-like and beautiful, the time he spent on witnessing the Good News took time away from his very profitable business, landing his family in very dire straits. This and other such experiences lead well-meaning people to consider having a strong opinion as being dangerous. Theirs only to live and die normally. If that is all we think matters, then we are really not very different from the irreligious. A 'normal' indifferent way of living is hardly normal in practice- the petty squabbles, jealousies, narrow-mindedness and prejudice are all part of this seemingly idyllic existence. As I said the difference in immorality is in scale, not in kind. Besides, I don't believe anyone could truly be indifferent to truth. Each one has a worldview- in fact Indifference itself is one. Also I think the pursuite of Truth about ourselves and our Creator are the desires of each heart, though this may be a latent realization, often in times of trouble.

4. The Nature of the human heart and alternative theories such as Maya

Dilip concludes his essay this way: "And given all the bloodshed that lack of understanding has caused, all through history, I wonder if that impossibility is intrinsic to religion itself.Maybe to humanity itself." Christianity holds that the human heart is a heart of darkness, of evil. The inherent, original sin manifests itself quickly- it's present in a child stealing a cookies as it is in as despot who commits genocide against his own people. Other religions consider this to be a contradiction. The Advaita stream of Hindu thought posits that evil and good are illusory, in fact the human condition with its contradictions of nobility and evil are all Maya, an illusion. The only way out of this is Moksha, a moment when one realizes that his inner self the Atman is part of the universal reality, the Brahman; and nothing else matters. This thought in several interpretations is at the heart of all Dharmic faiths. The 'cloud of unknowing' that these faiths talk about is a concept that fails to strike a chord in me, because I acutely feel the problem in myself- that snare of sin which compels me to do what I hate to do.

5. Four questions a worldview needs to answer

These are 4 essential questions each worldview needs to answer:

1. Who is God? (or what is God's nature?)
2. What is the human condition?
3. The problem of sin and transcendence
4. What is our destiny?

These are the pivotal questions on which hang concepts of salvation, forgiveness, love, wisdom, purpose, eternity and so on. These are the points at which each worldview differs and we are compelled to choose. If faith were simply about do's and dont's then I'm not so sure we need a religion. After do's and don'ts (whether they are actually based on righteousness or not) exist in every society- atheistic, animistic, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Shinto and so on. To focus on moralizing alone would be to just set up basic rules for social conduct, not very different from etiquette. Besides, the legislative systems in each country further quantifies offenses based on their perceived gravity. Such a concept of religion leaves us empty- we don't need blind rules. We need, most of all, a relationship on which the pillars of life and living rest. But more about that later. Let's go over each of these 4 questions.

Who is God? My mom used to tell me that God was an impersonal form of energy that pervaded the universe. This was surprising. I don't know if she would say the same thing now, but she's always been a Catholic and apparently found nothing wrong in reconciling faith in the person of Jesus with this idea of God as an 'oblong blur' in the universe. The fact is, Christianity ascribes personhood to God. God is a person with a personal nature and character. Other religions posit his having an impersonal character, some posit him just being the reality of all there is. Which brings us to the other point- God is not the universe or the matter, nor is he present in the matter. He created the matter as something other than Himself. He pervades space and time and is not bound by it. The picture is that of a Creator holding all creation in the palm of his hand. His presence is around it, but creation itself is separate from the hand.

What is the human condition? All religions need to explain this. Atheism simply states that the human condition is amoral, evolved and unnecessary. Not that all atheists believe that humans themselves are to be eradicated as a race, but that their significance to the earth is none- they could well be non-existent and the universe will go on. Many pantheistic religions believe that the human condition is a cloud of unknowing. They posit that the human being is in a trap of illusion, some posit that Man is caught up in desire and this desire itself is false; therefore to achieve a break from this he needs to let go of desire or break from the cloud of unknowing. The state to which he then arrives is the place of liberation wherein he 'realizes' union with reality. Here we must pause to ask the question: why do religions need to explain the human condition at all? Isn't religion more about God than man? Surely more theology and less anthropology is what we need, isn't it? Thre reason is this: whatever we do to deny it, we feel the tug of contraditction within ourselves. We do things which we don't feel comfortable doing; somehow we feel we shouldn't be doing them; we see beauty and order and love in the natural world around us, but we see it marred by cruelty and danger and loss and death. We cherish our relationships, but we see all relationships end in either dispute or death. We love to see new born babies and cherish their innocence, but they grow older and often less lovable, and they eventually die. We are unable to reconcile with the passage of time. We are continually surprised by how a person has grown older or taller or stronger or wiser, although this is to be only expected. We long for a better tomorrow, a better place, a better situation... a remedy. That begs the question, a remedy to what? Christianity calls it: Sin. All that follows after it- death, dispute, evil, trouble, as well as our longing for a better place and time point to this reality that is undeniable. Christianity believes that human beings are born into sin and we have a propensity to sin. Our nature longs to sin. After our first parents sinned against God's loving provision for them and breaking His plan for their lives, the human race fell headlong into the terror of rebellion against God. The propensity of our race changed from being responsive and submissive to God to being separated from God and naturally rebellious. We chafe at His authority, fear and distrust His sovereignity, doubt His love. We have also been deceived by earthly philosophy that bears a resemblance of His truth but is not quite it. That is the human condition. It's also the closest explanation I can identify with. I feel the tug of sin more than the cloud of unknowing. I sense temptation within my bones. It's right here within me and it's undeniably, irrevocably true. That brings us to point 3.

The problem with sin is that it is a vicious circle, a quagmire, a storm that cannot be tamed by discipline, devotion, love or by knowledge of law. Our best efforts may have kept us from being depraved enough as our fellow man, but deep inside we know it's just not enough. We have this urge to satisfy something or someone with our deeds and our lives. We live for certain people often- our kids, our spouses, or parents and other loved ones. We find significance in fighting causes for our nations, animals, the oppressed... But it just doesn't go away. Every worldview accounts for this or copes with it- Buddhism struggles to break free of desire through meditation, Hinduism meditates on union with the Ultimate reality and through the doctrine of karma, brings in consequences to our. Atheism denies sin, but loudly proclaims that we must build our own heaven on earth, as typified in Nietzsche's Superman. All of this fails because it fails to define the problem correctly. Desire in itself is not sin. Sinful desire is a corruption of godly desire. Meditation becomes escapism when it ignores the reality of our own sin. The doctrine of karma which promises rebirth after rebirth as karmic penalties is a pretty good picture of the remorseless victimization of sin, but gives us no solution to the dilemma. Atheism by denying sin cuts itself off from logic and reason, and fails to explain satisfactorily this fundamental contradiction we live with. What does Christianity say? The Judeo-Christian worldview defines sin as unrighteousness, meaning not being right with God. God is the moral law-giver and all good flows from him. Our understanding of good also follows from our understanding of his very nature. This worldview also says that we cannot be right with God by our merits or penance. Nothing we do forms a sufficient penalty. The only acceptable payment for sin is Christ's sacrifice- the price paid by the blamess for the sake of the sinful. When we cannot transcend into His kingdom he transcends into our world and reaches out to us to accept his invitation. When we could not ascend he descended and carries us with Him on his ascent.

Our destiny- as Christians we know that we will enter heaven- the very presence of God. The Christian life also clarifies for us our earthly purpose. In some mysterious way, as CS Lewis also notes, our earthly good works add up for us heavenly rewards so that when we look back on our life we know that all this was so from the beginning of the ages. The plan unfurls and we see better. A few months ago my friend remarked to me about an unbelieving friend of his who held that the only motive Christians could have for wanting to convert him was the prospect of 'riches' in heaven. What these riches are, we do not know. Would these e power, material well-being or other pleasure? The Bible speaks in figurative terms because Heaven is unlike nything else we have seen. I think every believer knows that whatever else heaven may be, it is the place where the Lord will be adored and worshipped and we will known Him as He knows us. Perhaps the reward is just that- the knowledge of God; and the more we conform to His image here on earth the more we grow closer to Him, the better glimpse we have of His heart. His desire is to have more of his people know Him, and this desire is what compels the believer to take His message out. When a new believer is born again, the Bible says that the agels rejoice, and so do we. It's more akin to the joy new parents experience than anything else. Such joy is not because now they have power over someone elseor even completely because of the joy a baby brings to themselves, but they are joyful for the birth itself, for the baby's own sake, for the fact that this baby has so much to learn and know and accomplish. Thus they rejoice at her wonder at seeing a sunset ro a firefly and love to impart what little they know. They long to be better parents than their own parents were and to make sure that the baby does better in life than they ever did. Their purpose for her is her character and wisdom and knowledge. Such gift-love is unknown in any other relationship. While in most cases the believer's joy in another believer does not compare to this, the unselfishness and freedom to rejoice in another's excellence of character has close parallels. The unbeliever cannot grasp it just as she cannot grasp the presence of God in the most mundane things. As poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning put it:


Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God;
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes -
The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries