The game, 2048, is an awesome game. Its simple but yet very addictive. Even after you know what strategy to apply. While I have been immersed in playing it for last one week or so, I came across this article in Hacker News about a javascript library developed to show Richard Dawkins’ Biomorph example to explain evolution. It made me think that even the game 2048 is a good example of this where 2 or 4 can be considered as basic biomorphs and the 16 blocks become the environment and then your actions of combining the blocks becomes the act of preferential choosing to lead the biomorphs into a certain evolutionary path, the concept of natural selection.
But just in its true sense with numbers, it is not very interesting as you can then easily predict the future children. You know that the exact path you need to take to reach a certain evolved child. Also the final result itself is fixed as you cannot change the criteria for natural selection in the game.
What if we could do that? What if instead of numbers, we had some biomorph similar to the one in the javascript implementation and we as the nature could decide the criteria of natural selection and what goes to next level. Ofcourse the number of blocks also have to be increased, may be the shape of the environment also changed.
It will be interesting to see how biomorphs would evolve overtime.
But this is still uninteresting. The killer feature would be if all the environments were connected to each other? Say in game 2048, once you reached 2048, you could combine with 15 other people who have reached that level and then each one of you combine to form a new environment where 1024/2048 is the numbers which keeps popping up on every move. This can be called as new evolved species in the new environment. Just instead of numbers it will be biomorphs. After the biomorphs have modified by certain factor in your environment, you get to combine with environments of others who have also reached that level and then continue playing with the higher species. Imagine how interesting it will be to see various developed biomorphs coming up on the internet thanks to the various criteria put up by people and their movements. I am thrilled with the idea.
Few fundamental questions that remain to be answered:
1) What kind of biomorphs can we use? Should the inital biomorph be of only one type? Can we just use elements in periodic table as the basic biomorph and then start combining them to form different molecules?
2) How do you calculate the amount of evolution to judge when to go to the next level?
3) What should be our environment and what should be the various actions in the environment?
4) When many environments combine, very soon the universe will be filled with environments which have very basic biomorphs to some which are very advance? Should these environments co-exist or can we just eliminate all basic environments as advance environments are formed.
Category: experience
June 4, 2014
Let us become the nature
April 4, 2014
The interesting development of Mozilla CEO’s exit
I was recently talking to a friend who told me how even though the idea of Free Software is very radical, it has not been able to translate to social changes on the ground and hence cant be called as a revolution in itself. Free Software has led to completely new ideas of producing and distributing software which has again probably also led to a complete different dimension to sharing knowledge like through Wikipedia, sharing digital media like through Creative Commons license and something which is becoming very popular now, the idea of open hardware. There is also now this whole idea of community over Internet which has brought people together for very specific issues. Starting from Anonymous, to Wikileaks to Arab springs, all these are ideas where people came together with the idea of community over the Internet and then doing some changes on the ground on actual real social issues.
The latest news of recently appointed Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich stepping down as he did not necessarily agree with homosexuality and had donated to support an anti-gay proposition is a very important development in free software evolution. The outrage it created within the mozilla community which actually led to this development is quite interesting. This states that Mozilla as one of the leading free software foundation has committed not only to equality in web and with respect to software but also equality amongst the people in real world. As a foundation mainly dealing with software and web, it has now stood for something that is involved in a social context of real world outside the realm of binary digits. This is important as it asserts the fact that freedom that we talk about in software also is equally important in real life if not much more important. Free Software, free Internet as an area of achieving freedom cannot be complete without changing things in actual society where people respect freedom of individuals in the society.
This also asserts a very different perspective of the community as a whole. Though in real world, opposition to gay marriages is very active and common, though the whole process of democracy in real world has not been able to change this in the actual society, in the virtual world, where the community is much more democratic it was able to change things for real. It leads interestingly to the idea that the real big world is not democratic enough or the virtual small world is very radical as against the actual real world. The voice of homosexual people which was not heard in real world was actually heard and echoed by the community in virtual world.
Ofcourse how this development will manifest itself in the real world inside the mozilla community, and also in other free software communities is up to be seen. Can it backfire on mozilla community where the real unequal society takes over and abandons mozilla for coming out of its stated realm of binary digits and taking part in real world issues? Will it alienate people, both users and developers who could appreciate the freedom in virtual world but cannot come to terms of such a freedom in real life?
December 20, 2013
The question of Hope in the Godless world
Often when you talk to people about God, one kind of people talk about the idea that they do not believe any one particular God or necessarily follow everything that is mentioned in their religion of birth. They believe in the idea of a universal God, One God for all theory and may be they feel that the moral explanation given in their holy books are close to what they also believe, however they are also glad to listen to what other religions say and might also go to some extent criticizing some aspect of their religion. These are the people from the modern society and they accept that Homosexuality is a personal choice and hence if their religion opposes it, it is not correct. Similarly these are the people who feel caste discrimination is not right and they dont mind eating and mingling with people from other castes.
The main reason of such people for belief in God is the notion of Hope that they receive in difficult situations. They believe in the super-natural being who wouldnt allow unjust things to happen to people like them who have always tried to be ‘morally’ correct. Of course, the notion of Hope is very important in the fast moving world of current society where things change rapidly and there is hardly anyone who has time to sit and listen to you. Hence the existence of supernatural being who keeps watching you and ensure that you are safe would definitely bring comfort.
While I was talking to a good friend of mine, he mentioned that this growing market for hope was what the current industry of Gurus and Swamijis trying to cater to. As people start learning about science in their education, even sub-consciously they would start questioning various myths and stories that revolve around their religion. Their idea of this supernatural being starts breaking and this is where Gurus and Swamijis come and patch things up for them. The idea of meditation where you start connecting with the super natural being, the idea of Yoga and Suryanamaskara where you start connecting with the nature seems to be a way of taking people back in that direction by telling them things which they again do not understand fully. However the instructions and manuals and the lectures now have scientific jargons which makes you feel more connected to the idea. However these ideas are something very new to me and hence I wouldnt delve into that topic.
What I am trying to understand in this blog is about what happens to the idea of Hope in a godless world.
I once noticed a beggar sleeping at a corner of a bus stop. Just on the other side of the bus stop was a bog sleeping. It made me realize how the life of the two is hardly different. Both would spend each day trying to find something to eat for themselves and that was probably their main activity of the whole life. Searching and scrounging for food. In this respect, what would the idea of Hope be for both of them. Would the beggar being a human think of existence of a God who would help him get food everyday.
To understand this, I think we should look into the idea of Hope amongst animals. How do animals in this barbaric nature survive? What is the idea of hope for a deer running with all its might to escape from a chasing tiger? Would it also have this notion of a supernatural being who would help it to survive from the hungry beast? I dont think there is way we can prove or reject this. We can only say that we have not yet seen some Dogs meeting every once a year and dancing or howling all at the same time in front of a some stone.
However there is one thing that we do see amongst the animals. They do live in groups (I am not sure if there every species of animals live in a group. Also considering living being, we also need to discuss about the idea of hope for Plants, but I will not delve into it.). Is it possible that the idea of being a part of a larger group which is formed to ensure safety of all its members is the Hope that animals have. Is it possible that the deer running from the tiger has the hope not that there is some supernatural being who is going to save it for its so called good deeds but it has the hope that its group members might help to save it.
I think this idea of group/community is very important even for people who understand that there is no super natural being taking care of them. (To Be Continued….)
November 21, 2013
Bytestruck-13, An experience
I had been hearing about ByteStruck a lot for close to one year. This is how I came across PACE GLUG in Mangalore. Unlike any other Free Software fest or conference, atleast that I know of, which generally targets graduate students or working professionals, the participants of ByteStruck are actually high school and pre-university students. The event aims to introduce students at a very young age to computer programming and Free Software ideology.
My usual interaction with school students are through the community centers that FSMK runs. The centers attract students from lower middle class or poor families who are generally completely new to computers. Many of them would have used a computer only at schools with very little understanding of its usage or internals. The centers are run with the aim to introduce these students with various usages and internals of computer and actually allow them to play with and explore computers at the centers. We have been quite successful in this effort and many of the students are very comfortable in using and understanding the systems. Some of them are now trying to get into the internals of the system. By this effort, we had hoped to see if we can in anyway try to control the increasing digital divide between the haves and have nots.
With this context, ByteStruck was a different experience for me where I actually met the other side of the high school student population. ByteStruck to its credit has now become a major event in Mangalore region and attracts the best of the students from some(if not, all) premier schools and pre-university colleges who mostly(hoping that I am not over-generalizing) come from upper middle class and rich families.
The brief interaction with the students during the event helped me understand the extent of the digital divide that exists currently in the society. On one side where we are happy to introduce office tools and browser to students in their 12th std or doing their B.Com/B.Sc, the students here were already talking about Android App Development, Spoofing web pages and flashing Mint on memory card and using it on a Raspberry Pi and these are students just in their 9th or 10th grade. Not only did all of them had used Wikipedia for completing their school homework before, they also had social networking accounts and email addresses. Many of the schools which participated followed syllabus from CBSE and hence all the students were familiar with the idea of open source(I was told that they have it as a chapter in Class 9th).
This event was an eye opener for me of how much we are loosing in the fight against the digital divide present in the country. Not only do we have to start working more actively with our community center students giving them much exposure, we also need to engage with them at a younger age and get them to explore computers and internet themselves. A major challenge that needs to be addressed is to allow students as much time as possible with the systems. This will then allow them to probably come over the idea that computer is only to play games and they will start exploring computer for other things(It took me over 2 years after having my own system to realize it. :)).
October 23, 2013
A criticism of Shourya’s climax
On a first watch, Shourya seems to be a very good movie with a very good plot. One of the rare movies which is inspired from Hollywood(in this case, Few Good Men) and gets it right. The movie has very good dialogues, especially from Kay Kay Menon. He is also supported well by Rahul Bose in acting. All in all, on the first watch, it leaves you inspired about Indian army and the pride which is associated with it. It also gives you hope about Bollywood, finally a movie well done.
However it is only probably the second or the third time that I watched it fully that I could identify something very subtly hidden, something which is disturbing. May be it is my exaggeration or just a dire attempt to find something wrong in the movie.
Unlike Few Good Men, where right from the start the motive behind the act seemed very clear, here the motive behind the act only gets clear very much to the end of the movie. In Few Good Men, the story keeps building till the last scene. However in Shourya, the story for the most part is not as much associated with the case. This makes the last part,the climax, much more profound in the movie.
The complete case changes when the motive behind the Brigadier’s action is revealed all of a sudden in the movie. This motive is actually where the movie digresses from Few Good Men and this motive is actually something which is really subtly hidden disturbing thing according to me. In Few Good Men, the whole case is about how a junior goes against his superiors and hence hurts their pride and ego. However here the junior’s main crime is with his religion and the motive revolves around the same. Brigadier is shown to have extreme fundamentalism and that seems to be his motive behind why he treats his junior from the minority religion in such a way.
In Shourya, the movie is about Javed Khan being Muslim and how Brigadier Pratap’s extreme fundamentalist views makes him give free reign to his officers to conduct atrocities against Muslims in the region. Hence the motive of Brigadier’s action is fundamentalism rather than Pride and Honor which is the case in Few Good Men. If the movie had stopped at it, it would have been understandable. However what the script writer does is also try to explain the reason behind Brigadier’s fundamentalism. In less than two minutes, a story about Brigadier’s complete family being murdered by a servant, Jameel who was with the family since his childhood and to whom Brigadier was very cordial is revealed. Jameel being a Muslim, very subtly, Brigadier’s fundamentalism is justified in the movie. In that small story, script writer clearly portrays how Jameel even though being with the family since his childhood and knowing the family had the fundamentalistic mindset and hence was able to brutally murder the family. What is disturbing is that though the movie talks about a Muslim’s patriotism through Javed, through another Muslim, Jameel, it also talks about some heinous incidents caused by a Muslim. The script writer clearly could not comprehend that a Hindu’s fundamentalism cannot be just because his understanding of the other religion and people is wrong. He tries to ascertain that Hindu’s fundamentalism is only because there is a Muslim who does heinous incidents to their family. Else they are always very cordial with them.
Hence subtly the movie tries to portray two points. For every patriot Muslim, there is a equally fundamentalist Muslim in India. Also behind every fundamentalist Hindu, there is a fundamentalist Muslim’s actions behind it. It is very unfortunate that the script writer had to include the story of Jameel to justify the act of Brigadier. It is unfortunate that a movie depicting Muslim’s patriotism actually conveys something like this subtly.
Ofcourse may be this is just criticism for the sake of criticism and clearly even I couldnt recognize it when I watched it first time.
I think these subtle messages are something which script writer needs to be well aware of and its understanding is what differentiates between great and good movie.
September 28, 2013
Why I am an Atheist – Bhagat Singh
It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the existence of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have realised that after having known me for a little time only, some of them have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to be more than that. I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess. I am known as a dictator among my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. But this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these are two different things.
I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself to be in possession of Godly qualities, or he goes a step further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it later in the essay. Here I wish to emphasise that I am not an atheist for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head. Let us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favourite with some college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views. It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up. In the Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics such that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.
Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the courage to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of his only book, ‘Bandi Jivan’ (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear reflection of his thoughts.
According to the prosecution, the ‘Revolutionary Leaflet’ which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to acquiesce in them.
In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.
Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that some day I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner. My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists. The ideas contained in Bakunin’s ‘God and State’ seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book ‘Common Sense’ by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.
In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr. Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me convicted and hanged.
I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions. After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can find a strong support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the situation now. First of all we all know what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing. If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.
You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps back.
Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.
As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success depends on chance and circumstances.
Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.” Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, – lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.
It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.
Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.
Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:
1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.
2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.
One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?
Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.
You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weight!
Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote (Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclair’s pamphlet ‘Profits of Religion’ – MIA transcriber) somewhere “only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.” The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.
I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper way. No more logic chopping! I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!
Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swami’s “Commonsense.” You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ All the later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.
Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.
You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.
As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.
Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows.
Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
Written: October 5–6, 1930
Source/Translated: Converted from the original Gurmukhi (Punjabi) to Urdu/Persian script by Maqsood Saqib;
translated from Urdu to English by Hasan for marxists.org, 2006;
HTML/Proofread: Andy Blunden and Mike Bessler;
CopyLeft: Creative Common (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2006.
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/10/05.htm
June 12, 2013
donation is not what it used to be
Donation – Something that is given to a charity, esp. a sum of money.
We have often used this word in its right meaning. People donating to charitable institutions. People donating goods to poor people.
However ask a young parent about donation? His understanding of the word will be different. Some of the popular questions that a young parent faces are:
“How much did you pay as Donation?”
“Do you know how much is the donation in that school?”
Schools open as charitable institutions have completely changed the meaning of Donation. Something which was voluntarily done is not only a compulsion, but also it has become the accepted standard.
The same is the case with words like Trust, Trustee. An institution registered as Charitable Trust makes the most profit. A trustee who is entrusted with the job of running the charitable trust is one who makes the most money out of the trust.
Strangely people are so busy with their lives that nobody is raising a voice against it.
Such change in the core meaning of words reminds me of Newspeak in George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ and his quote
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. “
May 11, 2013
Under self-government, India would commit suicide!!!
I was watching the movie “Gandhi” and was appalled by the scene of Jallianwala Bagh massacre as shown in the movie. I can only imagine the actual version to be much more bloodier and brutal. It led me to wonder what had led General Dyer to order such a massacre and still what led to his army to respect his order.
In the movie and also as per other sources, it is shown that he was not at all sorry for this incident and he felt that as a man from military, it was his duty to maintain the law as the Indians were breaking the martial law.
Not only did the British rule not take any action against him, he was honored as “Saviour of the Punjab” on his return to Britain.
It led me to wonder that if as Indians we are ever in the same position, will we also behave the same. Will we also show our might against the minority groups and celebrate our people who do so. The wave of fundamentalism flowing across the nation, isnt it asking to do exactly the same.
Few people being in the position of General Dyer are pulling the strings and giving orders. But isnt it is up to us to decide if we will pull the trigger and be part of the massacre.
Ironically, looks like General Dyer knew it already. This is what he had to say in his article “India’s path to Suicide” in the Globe of 21st January 1921:
“Our politicians like playing with vital affairs; but India should lie beyond the sphere of their jugglery. Self-government for India is a horrible pretence which would set the people of the country at each other’s throats long before the beginnings of contructive work were made possible. Under self-government, India would commit suicide; but our politicians would be guilty of murder as associates in the crime.”
Source : “The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer By Nigel Collett”
I wonder if we are going in path which will prove him correct.
March 24, 2013
What is the cost that we are ready to pay
People have been talking about the development model in certain states and how it needs to be emulated across the nation. But apart from all the PR machinery involved, this development model was bought by cashing a costly paycheck. This cost is that of complete ignorance of minority. Such ignorance breeds in itself a sense of alienation amongst the people and the current silence is only an indication of the future revolution that is going to be fought for equality and freedom by the minority.
There is not doubt that to keep themselves relevant the fundamentalist forces once in power, will sooner or later take us to war. External war threat has been looming onto us. With US forces planning to leave Afghanistan and Pakistan government becoming more and more unstable, there is no doubt that activities along the border is going to increase and people in power in New Delhi might have to take some tough decisions. If there are fundamentalist forces in power, it will only give them too easy a reason to take the nation to war.
However my concern is not external wars. My concern is the internal civil war that loom over us if fundamentalist forces see the light of the day of power.
Our society is on edge while media like an uninterested babysitter, is just shying away from its responsibilities to report the truth and come with concrete studies of the on-the-ground situation. Small insignificant incidents spread like a fire across the nation where as real burning issues of the common people are just not getting any attention. The mob behavior growing across the nation can easily be fueled towards any direction.
Lying on such a hot volcano bed, the future with fundamentalists being in power can only be catastrophic. Our society is yet to understand and respect difference of opinion and faith. With the kind of diversity, India boasts of and with the strong personal interests of a few to keep the society divided, we just have not yet been able to learn to live in harmony. Especially with the educated middle class just too interested in enjoying their sudden financial growth, there has been just too little interest in real solving social issues that plague the society and such issues have only grown thanks to the conducive environment. As always, it is not that the society wants to get into communal war. It is just that the environment becomes such that everyone is engulfed into it.
Now having considered such speculative but still serious issues, we need to consider what is the cost that we are ready to pay for the perceived development. Hence I request to all the people filled with anti-incumbency to have a greater thought on other alternatives present than the fundamentalist forces.
March 10, 2013
“Shatranj ke khiladi”
Shatrank ke khiladi is a movie directed by Satyajit Ray and story is written by Munsi Premchand. Its about how two aristocrats enjoy playing the game of chess and completely forget their duties even while their own kingdom is taken over by British and their king surrenders.
Satyajit Ray is known to have made stories which are critical of the society and which depict the situation of poor and ignorance of middle class. At least that is what I felt after seeing his movie Pather Panchali.
Here the King is too involved in enjoying his royal stature and has no interests in governing or ruling the kingdom. He feels that he has been forced to become the king and since the people are not voicing against his rule, he continues to enjoy it. He has been keeping the East India Company happy and always ensured that he provides the necessary monetary help whenever required.
The aristocrats are too very involved in their game of chess and the peace with British makes them feel safe and hence they completely ignore their duties towards the state. They feel proud of their ancestors and hence are in a delusion that in case of any threat from British, they are well prepared to defend themselves. When the British actually decide to impose their rule on the kingdom and plan to overthrow the King, the aristocrats are fearful that they might have to join the war and hence decide to flee from the city and go and stay at a mosque outside the city. They talk to themselves as if they actual decide to flee only because they do not want to be disturbed while playing chess.
The people are introduced at the end of the movie. When the aristocrats go outside the city, they find from a local boy that all the people have ran away fearing the British soldiers and the boy himself has remained just because he wants to see how the British soldiers look like. He is too happy to serve the aristocrats and hope to make some money out of it.
Though this story is from an era much before the existence of a middle class per se in Indian society, the role of aristocrats or the ones who governed can be considered as middle class, the royal family being the upper class and the general public being the lower class.
A similar story is currently being played in Indian society. The government is too busy ensuring that they continue enjoying their royal stature and nothing destroys their rule. They have no interests in governing the country for the people as representatives of the people and hence are very happy ensuring that the Corporations are kept happy and nothing hampers their business.
The middle class is busy enjoying their games of chess and do not want to be disturbed by anything. They are too proud of their current status and how their ancestors worked hard to get there. Get a job, buy a flat, get married, go abroad, have kids, educate them to get a job and continue the same cycle again. Important social issues like caste discrimination, communal riots, growing inequality, child labor, health are all ignored.
The poor currently is running everywhere. Farmers are moving to cities, poor from cities are running abroad working hard to ensure that consumerism does not take over them.
Its amazing how the times have changed, the rulers have changed but the social structure has changed little and how we continue in enjoying the game of chess while the country is being taken over.
