There are three types of people in India – pro-Modi, anti-Modi, and those who don’t care about politics. Let anyone say otherwise, but there is no type that cares about politics and is agnostic with regards to Modi. The man does polarise, though not necessarily in the negative sense that our media and liberal friends would want us to believe.
I will discuss the first two – pro-Modi and anti-Modi. There are zealots on both sides. I will not talk of them for that is moot at best and mental masturbation at worst. What I will talk about are the pro and anti brigade who is not zealous. Yes, they exist – barely in the case of the anti brigade and substantially in the case of the pro brigade. Do re-read. I am saying that most of the pro-brigade is non-zealous while most of the anti-brigade is zealous.
Why do I say that? I say that because the anti brigade brandishes numbers like only 31% of the voters voted for BJP. In some sort of twisted logic it automatically implies that 69% voters did not want the BJP government. Too much it is for them to understand that the NDA got 39% of the votes polled, and Modi was the PM candidate for NDA. Even so, they would say that 61% of the population does not want Modi was their PM. Obviously, no government at the centre has ever had a vote share of over 50%. Are they implying that no one had the mandate to be the PM of this country?
The anti brigade only gets into fault-finding. They don’t see any good in the current administration. They want 60 years of poverty to disappear in one year. They want 10 years of wrongs to be righted in one year. They want everything now. Wonder why they did not want everything instantly for the last 67 years.
Is the pro brigade faultless? Of course not. But is the pro brigade more rational in their support and less blinded by its prejudice? A resounding yes! They criticise Modi when he talks ill of the country abroad. They praise good work done by non-BJP governments. They don’t get into a fault finding exercise. They counter misrepresentation with facts. Yes, they do it vociferously. On that they could be faulted.
However, does the pro brigade have a choice? With newspapers like the Express, news channels like NDTV and websites like Scroll spreading misinformation, lies and manufactured news stories on a daily basis, someone has to shout them down.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
The dark ages
The only ages that are dark are those that inhibit thought, especially thought contrary to one's own.
This seems to be tried out as an experiment: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rajasthan-government-plans-to-use-cow-urine-as-a-disinfectant-in-hospitals-760777
Is that a bad thing?
This seems to be tried out as an experiment: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/rajasthan-government-plans-to-use-cow-urine-as-a-disinfectant-in-hospitals-760777
The pilot project will start with one ward of Jaipur's biggest hospital -- the Sawai Man Singh Hospital. A team of doctors will compare the result with that of another ward where a regular disinfectant has been used.
"I will put a team of doctors there to study for a month and we will then be able to establish how effective is the cow urine and if it really works or not," said the state's health minister Rajendra Rathore...If a scientific study is being undertaken, should we simply belittle it because the subject of the study seems ridiculous to us? Or doesn't scientific temper warrant us to keep an open mind, and to judge an outcome purely on the basis of empirical evidence? To me, this study appears to be an exercise to find empirical evidence. If evidence is found supporting cow urine's disinfecting properties then one set of people can go around saying "I told you so", and if evidence is not found then the other set of people can go around saying "I told you so". But at least there will be a scientific basis to do so.
Is that a bad thing?
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The game of (farmer) suicides
"The National Crime Records Bureau of India reported in its 2012 annual report that 135,445 people committed suicide in India, of which 13,754 were farmers (11.2%)."
"India's adjusted annual suicide rate is 10.5 per 100,000, while the suicide rate for the world as a whole is 11.6 per 100,000."
Of the total number of farmer suicides in 2002, 16.81% are attributed to crop failure, 2.65% to a price crash and debt burden and 0.88% to borewell failure.
My conclusions:
1. While even a single suicide is one suicide too many, India is better off in per capita terms than many developed countries.
2. Farmers constitute 60% of the population, while 11.2% of the total people committing suicides are farmers.
3. Of the farmers committing suicides, only 16.81+2.65+2.65+0.88 = 22.99% do it for farm related reasons. This means percentage of farm related suicides is 11.2x22.99 = 2.57%.
4. The other reasons for a farmer to commit suicide are similar to reasons for anyone else to commit suicide. Those suicides should ideally not be counted under farmers' suicides.
In pure number terms, it appears to me that suicide among farmers is not the pandemic it is made out to be. On the contrary, least number of suicides seem to be attributable to farm related reasons.
Suicide is probably a bigger problem in another demographic, but we don't talk about it.
PS: Assumption - the 2002 statistics for reasons for committing suicide by farmers are assumed to be roughly same today also.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_India
"India's adjusted annual suicide rate is 10.5 per 100,000, while the suicide rate for the world as a whole is 11.6 per 100,000."
Of the total number of farmer suicides in 2002, 16.81% are attributed to crop failure, 2.65% to a price crash and debt burden and 0.88% to borewell failure.
My conclusions:
1. While even a single suicide is one suicide too many, India is better off in per capita terms than many developed countries.
2. Farmers constitute 60% of the population, while 11.2% of the total people committing suicides are farmers.
3. Of the farmers committing suicides, only 16.81+2.65+2.65+0.88 = 22.99% do it for farm related reasons. This means percentage of farm related suicides is 11.2x22.99 = 2.57%.
4. The other reasons for a farmer to commit suicide are similar to reasons for anyone else to commit suicide. Those suicides should ideally not be counted under farmers' suicides.
In pure number terms, it appears to me that suicide among farmers is not the pandemic it is made out to be. On the contrary, least number of suicides seem to be attributable to farm related reasons.
Suicide is probably a bigger problem in another demographic, but we don't talk about it.
PS: Assumption - the 2002 statistics for reasons for committing suicide by farmers are assumed to be roughly same today also.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_India
The agnostics have all the fun
The trouble with both atheists and religionists (yes, I am coining a word - the word believer is a misnomer many times) is that they are both stuck in their belief system - one believes there is no God while the other believes there is God. The moment you start a premise with a belief system, it throws all logic and proof out the window.
The atheists say, "Aha! But show me proof that God exists." I say, "Didn't the Berlin wall come down? Didn't apartheid end? Didn't African Americans get their rights?" Are these events anything short of miracles? Of course Moses didn't part the sea and Jesus didn't convert water to wine. All that is urban legend. But is it that much of a stretch to consider that not all that we see around us can yet be explained by science? It is this unwillingness to accept the possibility of an alternative narrative that makes atheists fundamentalists. It makes them no different than the religionists' refusal to accept the possibility that God may not exist.
The agnostics, on the other hand, do not care either way. They are the open source coders of this world, their allegiance neither to Apple nor to Microsoft. They use the best possible piece of code to write the most efficient programs. They don't care if this code was written by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs/Wozniak or Linus Torvalds or their grandmother. If it fits their requirement, meets their objective then the code becomes their bible (for lack of a better synonym).
Apple or Microsoft fanboys never get to write the most efficient programs. To them, nothing exists beyond their respective ecosystems. Yes, their programs will achieve the same results as those of open source coders but they will also be more convoluted.
To me, the debate between atheists and religionists is a Canon vs. Nikon or an Apple vs. Microsoft debate. Agnostics have all the fun. Award winning pictures are not taken because you have the best camera gear. They are taken because you woke up at 3 in the morning to capture the most perfect light 30 minutes before dawn. And any camera today will help you capture that.
The difference lies in knowing.
The atheists say, "Aha! But show me proof that God exists." I say, "Didn't the Berlin wall come down? Didn't apartheid end? Didn't African Americans get their rights?" Are these events anything short of miracles? Of course Moses didn't part the sea and Jesus didn't convert water to wine. All that is urban legend. But is it that much of a stretch to consider that not all that we see around us can yet be explained by science? It is this unwillingness to accept the possibility of an alternative narrative that makes atheists fundamentalists. It makes them no different than the religionists' refusal to accept the possibility that God may not exist.
The agnostics, on the other hand, do not care either way. They are the open source coders of this world, their allegiance neither to Apple nor to Microsoft. They use the best possible piece of code to write the most efficient programs. They don't care if this code was written by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs/Wozniak or Linus Torvalds or their grandmother. If it fits their requirement, meets their objective then the code becomes their bible (for lack of a better synonym).
Apple or Microsoft fanboys never get to write the most efficient programs. To them, nothing exists beyond their respective ecosystems. Yes, their programs will achieve the same results as those of open source coders but they will also be more convoluted.
To me, the debate between atheists and religionists is a Canon vs. Nikon or an Apple vs. Microsoft debate. Agnostics have all the fun. Award winning pictures are not taken because you have the best camera gear. They are taken because you woke up at 3 in the morning to capture the most perfect light 30 minutes before dawn. And any camera today will help you capture that.
The difference lies in knowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)