After many months, we now see the true colors of the Unique Identity (UID) number that Nilekani is so keen to foist on the Indian public. At a function organized by the Indo American Chamber of Commerce, he admitted that the real motivation for the UID was to track people. He also said that in time, if someone didn’t have a UID, that would in itself be suspicious.
Long ago, it was feared that the UID will be used for mass surveillance. Nilekani goes so far as to say that all hotels might be required to demand a UID from those who stay there – not for purposes of credit or to ensure payment, but simply so that the government will be able to keep track of who is where.
The obvious question is, where will this stop? If hotels demand a UID before you can stay in them, will it be long before a theater asks for it before you can watch a movie? Even worse, can a policeman randomly stop you on the road and ask for it as well? This isn’t the same as being asked for a driver’s license since not everyone should be allowed to drive if they’re not qualified. But asking for an ID “just to check up on you” is an invasion of privacy. However, since privacy is a legal right in India, I wonder how such procedures would stand up in court.
To assume that the government won’t become more and more intrusive if it has the ability is stupid. Whenever governments get too much power, disaster ensues. We can rest assured that slowly, bit by bit, the uses of this UID will continue to increase and become more and more pervasive if technologically feasible. Most of us still don’t realize how much the loss of privacy will hurt. They will learn once they do lose it. In that way, this whole experiment is a good thing. It’ll be painful, but it might just be the start of an experience that will teach us the value of what we take for granted in a free country like India.
The “Equal Opportunities Commission” needs to have its head examined. The latest loonacy is to get private companies to maintain a “religious inventory” of their staff so that they can ‘monitor’ discrimination based on religion.
It’s so silly I don’t know where to start. What are they going to do with the data? Suppose an organization has too few muslims, are they going to try and implement a quota? Or if there are too many muslims (proportionately speaking), will they accuse the organization of discriminating against hindus? I can already imagine crazy parties like the Shiv Sena swooping down and decimating a small business for employing too many muslims…
And of course, if the ultimate goal is to make religion irrelevant then monitoring it is the last thing you want to do. If the caste system still exists in India today, it is in large part due to the government putting its nose in where it shouldn’t. By highlighting caste, monitoring it and laying down separate rules, the government has ensured that the caste system will never die. And if they start monitoring religion in professional organizations, we can be sure that religion will start to play a bigger role in the workplace.
When will the government learn to leave things alone? We don’t need more monitoring, we need less. Just keep an eye out for crimes, and unfair practices and let things sort themselves out. I’m going to quote yet again from the Tao Teh Ching here about how to govern:
The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware.
Next comes one whom they love and praise.
Next comes one whom they fear.
Next comes one whom they despise and defy.
When you are lacking in faith, Others will be unfaithful to you.
The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words.
When his task is accomplished and things have been completed,
All the people say, “We ourselves have achieved it!”
Tao Teh Ching – Ch. 17.
Kickass translation from John C. H Wu!
Perhaps the government should learn that things take their own sweet time to change. Contrary to popular opinion these days, Democracy works in India (with a little help from the judiciary). We’re doing just fine. Leave things be and don’t try and force change down people’s throat. It’s not going to work. Lucky the corporates are putting up a good fight against maintaining this sort of dossier. And rightly so. They don’t want to be accused of religious profiling. So here’s hoping this will never be finalized.
This is going to be a tough one for you guys to swallow. At the heart of it, is a chap called Lawrence Summers who’s currently the Director for the National Economic Counsel in the US. When he was president of the World bank, he wrote a memo which recommended dumping more toxic waste in developing countries because – get this – lives in poorer countries are worth less than those in developed countries.
Dumping Toxic Waste in Developing Countries - because rich people's lives are worth more?
The problem of where to dump toxic waste generated abroad has plagued planners in the west for a long time. The recent controversy regarding the Platinum II cruiseliner on Indian shores is evidence of this. Summer’s memo makes a very clear point by saying,
“The World Bank should be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]“
He gives three reasons. First, rich people in the west earn more money. Therefore if someone has to die, it makes economic sense for it to be the poor people. In his words:
“I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”
Second, poor countries like Africa are under polluted! To quote:
“I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City”.
His logic is that the pollution generated by the west must be spread over the globe instead of being restricted to the countries where it was created. In other words, he sees the good air quality in Africa as a haven for dumping the Industrialized world’s waste into.
And finally, he says that since people in poor countries anyway have a shorter life expectancy, dangerous chemicals will have less of an impact on them. He goes on to claim that they’ll be willing to trade clean air in exchange for money since they must value a clear environment less than rich people
Remember that these aren’t the words of some loony fringe economist, but the Chief economist of the World Bank in 1991 and who still holds a position of prominence in the Obama administration!
In my opinion, such statements can only come from economists who view everything including life in terms of money. Wait, that’s not true. Corporates whose only motive is profit also think the same way. When you start looking at the entire world using just one metric – money, you commit terrible atrocities because your sole aim is then to increase that metric to the expense of everything else. The whole world becomes a means to increase your money as much as possible. The lives of all living things, and the environment are fodder to be used.
When Summer’s memo was released, it created a terrible backlash leading him to claim that it wasn’t serious. But from reading his language in the original memo, I don’t believe that for one moment. I think he was dead serious. And for a brief moment, we the regular public caught a glimpse of the kind of people who rule our world today.
Update: I have been persuaded by my Significant Other (without physical violence I swear!) to add a disclaimer to this post. Namely that this is a theoretical discussion – in practice, I acknowledge that the provision of a separate coach for Indian women in trains is probably the best solution to prevent harassment as of now.
If there’s one thing our government’s good at, it’s legislating morality. Whether we’re talking about time restrictions for bar dancers, homosexuality or gambling, our “leaders” in Delhi feel that it’s their job to ensure that we follow their morals. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they don’t. The point is, what is the use of legislating morality if the people themselves don’t feel that way?
Take women’s equality for example. The government feels (and rightly) that women must have the same essential rights as men. So it goes about legislating it. How does it do this? By implementing reservation in parliament, providing separate seats in buses and separate coaches in trains. And still women face discrimination from men. And far from making them “equal”, measures like this only strengthen the bias against women since the men feel that they’re getting a raw deal.
How would I like women to be equal? Well for one, I wouldn’t like to talk about women at all. I don’t care about women. I only see people. Me no care if thee is woman, transsexual, black, white, old, or have pins in thy head. Wtf is women’s rights anyway? I just want all adults to have the same rights and opportunities. Is that so hard to understand? Damn, why should people have to fight separately for “gay rights” and “women’s rights” and “lower caste rights?” – can’t all you guys just gang up and say “treat everyone the same?”
Of course if my way of thinking goes through, we’ll have to put an end to reservation for all lower castes. How d’you expect lower caste people to improve if you keep reinforcing the feeling that they’re different? 60 years down the line, and all the reservation in the world hasn’t helped. The original intention was to get rid of reservation a few decades later – and now because of reservation, the caste system in still alive and thriving since people now see that being of a lower caste actually has an impact on their life instead of being a useless badge.
It’ll also mean an end to all sorts of special privileges for women. By legislating morality in this way, the government has generated nothing but anger and has widened the gap between the sexes. Many people are now angry with lower caste people because they have reservations and many men are now pissed with women because they get to have special seats in a bus.
I understand that women have a tough time traveling in crowded buses and trains – well, I can try and imagine it, not understand it since I haven’t felt it – but surely pinching a person’s butt is a crime even if the victim is a guy. I’ve been hit on a few times by gays in Delhi since I’ve been told I look “chikhna” – apparently that’s hot in gay land. I feel that by providing a separate coach for women, you’re kind of saying that pinching a girl’s bottom is ok if she’s in front of you.
It’s this sort of piecemeal legislation which doesn’t address the fundamental issues that will prolong the time necessary for women to achieve true equality. Deal harshly with discrimination of any sort of person – only then will it get into the thick skulls of people that life is life irrespective of the form it’s in.
Note the addition of two more cases at the bottom to add to my tracking woes .
Some may remember that the Krantikari Manuwadi Morcha once supported Dara Singh who killed the Australian Missionary Graham Staines and his two sons. Now they’re aligning themselves to challenge the reading down of Section 377 with a Christian organization who’s trying to get justice for Graham! So basically killing 3 people is okay, but heaven forbid two people have sex in private!
The Raza Academy at the bottom of the pile apparently feels that India is subject to Muslim Sharia law by saying “The government should have held discussions with religious organizations before repealing the controversial Section- 377.”
So the number of people opposing the ruling has now reached a nice round figure – 10. I hope they cry themselves hoarse. Because any fool can see where this case is going – the loonies haven’t a prayer.
P.S: Apparently the court’s site gets updated many days after a hearing which is why I’m unable to immediately post the next hearing date. Maybe they have a weekly schedule or something- or perhaps they can’t handle the load. Bear with me on this…
When the project to give every India a Unique Identity (UID) Number was announced, the reason given to the public was that it would check illegal immigrants. Of course, even at that time some of us wondered how this could be achieved since there was no way to check whether a person was an illegal immigrant before giving the UID.
It turns out that we were right. Our home minister Chidambaram has admitted that the UID won’t be able to identify existing illegal immigrants. Even after handing out the cards, the UID will at most be a proof of residence and not citizenship. So what’s the real reason for the card? Why did the government have to cover up the purpose with the “stopping illegal immigrants” mantra?
The real reason is that the UID will act as a link between various government databases. As it stands right now, the government has little bits of info about us which are relevant to their department. For example, the tax department knows what it needs to know – namely your financial details and such. It doesn’t know about your health or education. Nor should it. In the same way, your health data (if maintained by the government and insurance companies) should not be linked to your tax status and finances.
Now suppose all the data from the various government departments is aggregated. Imagine you go to a hospital for treatment, it will be theoretically possible for the hospital to “determine” whether you’re financially sound by looking at your investments and refuse to treat you on that basis. Or suppose you go to enroll your kid in a school and using your UID, the school is able to recover your financial situation?
Or worse still, suppose a governmental officer asks you for a bribe after checking out how much you’ll be able to pay? The possibilities for abuse are simply endless.
The dangers of having data easily accessible in one place can only be mitigated by thorough privacy laws and technical measures. But we have no such comprehensive privacy laws (though Nilekani has said the country needs them). Moreover, this will be the largest identification database in the history of mankind. Smaller systems have been compromised till now. Do you trust the Indian babus to not abuse the power this database gives them? I certainly don’t.
A very common argument raised by those protesting against the decriminalization of homosexuality runs something like this: “If you allow men to have sex with men on the principle that what you do in the privacy of your home is no one’s business, what next? Sex with animals?” It surprises me that such logic isn’t automatically refuted by those who think for even five minutes. But to those who persist in this inane vein, here’s why it’s a foolish comparison.
Bestiality is different type of crime – namely cruelty to animals. Doing what you want in the privacy of your home doesn’t extend to the freedom of indulging in private abuse. So this particular crime has nothing to do with homosexuality which takes place in private between consenting adults.
The whole “against the order of nature” is a specious argument. Those who indulge in it, should stop brushing their teeth for starters. And here’s the kicker – homosexuality is natural. Animals happily engage in gay sex without our prejudices against such unions.
And that gurgling sound you hear is this particular argument of the anti-gay crowd getting flushed down the toilet.
And here’s the last point – if a particular animal (say a cow) has a large enough vagina to not be affected whatsoever by a gentleman’s activities directed towards it, I see no reason for it to be illegal. I mean sure it’s not something I would do, but hey it takes all sorts! What’s the harm? The cow doesn’t care. Victimless crime. And I don’t think that victimless crimes should be crimes at all.
At the end of WWII, the world woke up to the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. People treated as objects, systematically and efficiently killed, devalued to the point where a guard would think it normal to rip out a victim’s gold capped teeth. It’s as if the world had suddenly gone mad. It horrified us because the guards were just like us – regular people doing their job. We prayed that we would never see the like again and were grateful that it was over. But I learned something last night. It’s not. And I’m the cause.
Before you read further, let me make one thing clear. I’m not exaggerating. None of what I say is for effect. Nothing is overstated. In fact, I find it impossible to use words that are strong enough to state the truth as it is. Anything I say falls short of reality. That is why for the first time on this blog, I am using videos. In spite of being a professional writer, my skills aren’t sufficient to convey what I feel.
Last night my wife and I watched a documentary called “Earthlings.” Remember when you were little, and your parents told you that there was a place called Hell? Where you would burn alive in boiling oil, and were skinned? Last night, I realized that such a place exists. In fact, many do. For the sake of satisfying my trivial wants for clothing, entertainment and “quality” meat, animals are routinely mutilated, tortured, beaten, boiled, and skinned alive. Alive I say. Without anesthesia and without anything to dull the pain. In my name.
Fur Farms
It pains me to have to show this on my blog. I don’t like to manipulate people into feeling something by showing them well arranged footage with stirring music. But in order to convey the horror of what I feel, here is a 30 second clip from the video: (Warning – this is graphic)
Fur Farm in China
These animals have to undergo this brutal torture for being beautiful. Because we feel we have a right to their fur which was given to them by birth for their protection. Because we don’t believe that they have the right to keep it. Such a fur coat sells for $50,000 in US stores. If it were worth a million, it would still not be worth it.
Slaughter Houses
But most people who are reading this will say that they don’t use fur. That only a small handful of rich people can afford to wear genuine fur. This is true. But a very large percentage of us eat meat – including myself. There was once a time when I prided myself on saying “I’m a pure non vegetarian.” I absolutely hate vegetables. I was comfortable with the idea of animals dying for me.
But I never realized they were being tortured.
What I learned from “Earthlings” and confirmed by my own independent research was that all slaughterhouses indulge in the following (and none of it is with anesthesia).
Cows
For cows who are killed for meat and milked, their fate is:
Clipping their horns with shears (dehorning)
Branding with red hot irons on the face
Being made to stand while a machine milks them till they drop and die
Being hung up while still alive and drained of blood while they slowly die of asphyxiation
Here’s a 33 second clip showing a cow being branded on the face and dehorned.
Pigs
For Pigs who are killed for meat:
Their tails are casually plucked off by hand as the piglets scream in pain
Their teeth are ripped out with pliers (so that they don’t bite each other)
The male piglets are castrated by hand with the men simply tearing off their testicles. They then dig with their fingers to get the remaining flesh out
Watch this 82 second clip to see how men take pleasure in hitting the pigs, cursing them, tormenting them as part of their job. Here is a 135 second clip showing men ripping off the tails of piglets, cutting their teeth, and tearing out their testicles.
Chickens
For Chickens, the documentary shows little yellow chicks just born, who’re still unaware of what’s going to happen to them – chirping away happily before their misery begins. It’s very tough to watch. This is what happens to them:
Their beaks are burnt off so they don’t peck each other
To maximize the number of chickens per sq. foot, they’re crowded together in impossible densities
In desperation, they peck each other despite their severed beaks. Cannibalism is an everyday affair
They are thrown against the wall violently to kill them. Men then come and jump on them to kill those who don’t die.
It’s impossible to describe the casual way in which all this is carried out. Here is a 35 second clip showing them being jumped upon and beaten to death with rods.
Dolphins
Dolphins are then killed in a uniquely cruel manner. The commercial fishers attract a school of dolphins and just injure one to draw a lot of blood. Dolphins never abandon wounded family members and the rest of them flock to their companion and are then brutally caught. To see this happen, here is a 78 second clip.
But there is more. Much much more.
These are not isolated examples. A little bit of research will inform you that this happens everywhere and everyday. The documentary shows how cows in India are slaughtered for leather – how they’re transported to a state where their slaughter is legal, how their tails are repeatedly broken to keep them moving. None of this is isolated. When I first went to the US, I had thought it was better there. I was brutally disillusioned. I now know that it’s much worse.
The better infrastructure for killing in the US means that animals can be treated even more impersonally and brutally. The moment a killing system becomes a system, it becomes horrifying. Motivated by nothing more than profit, large corporations in the US cut corners to push through as many as 10 billion cattle a year. That’s almost twice the human population in just 365 days.
Circuses
We like to think that animals are trained using “positive reinforcement” instead of torturing them. In “Earthlings”, an elephant trainer says that he never uses the rod to hurt the animal. In this 50 second clip we see just how true this is. Notice how the trainer tries to impress upon his apprentice that he must cause the maximum amount of pain in order to successfully train the elephants.
A person like me may find watching these clips is too stressful. But if I eat beef, chicken, or pork I have no right to say that. If those animals can suffer the real torture, I have no right to spare myself the knowledge. After all, can my suffering be compared to theirs?
We are the Nazis
I hate to think that the Holocaust is happening right now. But twist it any way I wish, I can’t deny that it is. The effect that this documentary has produced on me is colossal. I find it very hard to love humans after seeing something like this. I’m not a person who easily gets upset by blood and gore. Not at all. But this is tough – real tough to watch. But I have a responsibility to see it. I must know what I am causing.
Can we stop the Holocaust from continuing? Compared to what these animals are going through, the original Holocaust was a piece of cake. I’m shaken and I have very little energy left. I hope this post has the ability to waken people who read it. To realize what is happening in our name and for our sakes. There is only one thing left for me to do. And I’ll save that for a later post.
People have many different reactions when watching and reading stuff like this. Sometimes we’re not sure ourselves how to feel. Put your thoughts down in the poll below.
You can select any two choices.
Loading ...
Circuses
We like to think that animals are treated using “positive reinforcement” instead of torturing them. In “Earthlings”, an elephant trainer says that henever uses the rod to hurt the animal. In this 50 second clip we see just how true this is. Notice how the trainer tries to impress upon his apprentice that he must cause the maximum amount of pain in order to successfully train the elephants.
A person like me may find watching these clips is too stressful. But if I eat beef, chicken, or pork I have no right to say that. If those animals can suffer the real torture, I have no right to spare myself the knowledge. After all, can my suffering be compared to theirs?
One of the blogs I’ve been following lately is Hari Batti’s Green Light Dhaba which is very close to my heart. It seems that Hari talks about all things that I myself think about and I participate avidly in the discussions on his posts. And so I thought to myself, why not have a guest post from this great guy on my own blog? His is highly popular and my own poor creation gets some new readers as well pointing all my own subscribers and trespassers to a resource which is really going places. So I floated the idea to him, and he has kindly consented to spend his time and energy on a guest post for “Expressions”. Without further ado, here it is!
—————————————————————————–
It is a real pleasure to be guest posting here; I’ve enjoyed this blog a great deal since I found it a month or so back. I spend most of my time writing in Delhi at the Green Light Dhaba; I’d love to have you stop by there as well, some time.
I took my kids to the pair of monstrosities known as the Select City/MGF Metropolitan Malls and we did a little research a few weeks back. (And yes, I did have to compensate them with a round of over-priced iced teas. But I have never pretended to be perfect in matters of personal consumption.)
MGF Metropolitan
Here are some of the things we found. First of all, the positive side: malls are designed to make people giddy with excitement! It happened to my kids; it even happened to me, just a little bit.
Where does this feeling come from? Some of it is a result of the fact that suddenly we are in a “market” where we don’t have to jump out of the way of speeding two wheelers. But there are other things malls do to make you feel that way. Look at all the lights; feel the AC; ah, the spray of the water from the fountains. Scarcity has no place in a Delhi mall; neither do really poor people.
It is an intoxicating illusion–if you don’t think too much about what it costs to create and maintain it. (On the way out, I had to wonder whether the bright blue “Riot Control” van permanently parked on the road in front of the mall was part of how that illusion is enforced.)
The Riot Control Van
Of course, the good feeling does not feel so good once you see the price tags of the goods being sold.
You see, high end malls are…expensive! The week before Diwali, Mint ran a big spread on holiday gift ideas. It included things like a Boombox for Rs. 4,199, an iPod for Rs. 11,200, and playing cards in a crocodile skin holder for only Rs. 36,000. This is the kind of stuff you will find in a high-end Delhi mall, and it is terrible for a number of reasons. Aside from the obvious issues of bad taste and dead crocodiles, there is the fact that much of what you find in a mall is imported. From an environmental point of view, that means that a whole lot of stuff had to be shipped a very long way–and shipping is a major source of global CO2 emissions. From the point of view of old fashioned economics, there is another problem caused by all those imported goods: a large part of the money spent at the mall goes straight out of the country. Which means it does very little in terms of creating jobs here. By contrast, when you buy locally grown food or locally made products in your local market, nearly all of the money you spend stays right here in the local economy.
But what about all those workers the mall employs, you ask? In fact, a mall is a very inefficient employment generator, because very little of the money spent in the mall goes to the workers who work there. Of course Arjun Sharma is not going to let me go over his books, but we did speak to one worker who sells brand name handbags ranging from Rs. 1000 all the way up to Rs. 4,200. She earns Rs. 4,500 a month. In other words, one hand bag sells for nearly as much as she earns in a month. If there is a sale on, this woman may sell as much as Rs. 35,000 worth of product over the course of one day. Malls promote the growth of overseas factories along with a few low wage local jobs. We can do better than that.
Speaking of employment, it’s not as if the people who do the work of building these malls will ever be able to shop in them; in fact, they live in horrible slums. One of these tent cities occupied the land right outside Select City for years while it was being built. Now it has moved down the road closer to where some other projects are being developed. So as not to offend shoppers, it is hidden behind a tall fence.
The Slums of the Workers
After seeing this, my 9 year old asked me this: “Instead of building another mall, why don’t the workers build homes for themselves?”
I tried to explain about how people who invest money to build things want to make more money, and they think building a mall will give them more profits than building homes for poor people. “It’s how the game works, son,” I said.
“But it’s not a game. It’s life,” was his answer.
There wasn’t much I could say to that, of course, because he was right; life is not a game and to use such metaphors runs the risk of trivializing things that are not trivial: poverty, environmental degradation, enormous unfairness.
A new mall, like over-consumption in general, is possible and profitable because we don’t pay the full cost of products from the mine to the dump. It is profitable because the monthly wages of the woman who sells you a handbag may not be equal to the price of the handbag itself. It is profitable because we allow the men, women and children who build our malls and our roads and our homes to live outside under tarps.
It will not be easy to encourage investment in sustainable development. Investors won’t change their behavior out of the goodness of their hearts. Somehow, we need to change what is profitable. We can start by strengthening and enforcing minimum wage laws. Then we can see to it that companies are not allowed to pollute for free; the full cost (including the cost of pollution and disposal) of all products should be reflected in their price tags. That will make a lot of stuff, especially stuff that is designed for the dump, more expensive. If we do this, we will have to consume fewer material goods; if we do it right, we can compensate by consuming more things that are sustainable: art, leisure time, good food, clean water etc.
Figuring out how to make all this happen will be a complicated business, but it’s not impossible, and it’s terribly important that we start soon. We need to change the way we do business; to do this we’ll to change the rules of the game. The rules of life.
Just to keep those who are following updated, the case asking the Womanist Organization of India to prove that women are equal to men in the Bombay HC – note how I’m using Bombay not Mumai; I challenge the Shiv Sena to come get me – has been postponed to the 3rd of November 2009. Apparently the case was heard on the 6th of October (I don’t know why) – I wasn’t able to find that out in advance.
No idea why it was postponed. I’m getting the feeling that this happens with most cases. In the future, I may have an abbreviated way of displaying the notice for a postponed case. But anyway, see you on the 3rd!
Loading ...
.
– has been postponed to the 3rd of November 2009. Apparently the case was heard on the 6th of October (I don’t know why) – I wasn’t able to find that out in advance.
