Stick To The Basics

Stick to the basics. You can solve everything from first principles. That used to be my mantra/dictum in school. With that, I managed to pass in Physics and Math. Never tried it with Biology or Chemistry--blame bad teachers and dissected frogs. The mantra seemed good even with languages--I used/use language only to communicate (or miscommunicate, my dear friends would say), with minimum vocabulary maximum effect. The rest of the subjects, don't even ask if I passed. When I went to college, I stuck to Physics and Math. Expanded the mantra a little. Basics were still good. But I had to question everything. I was ready for paradigm shifts. And, with a little bit of disillusionment, I accepted the fact that the only certainty I can have is a decent approximation. I also learned not to waste time on 'non-questions', such as who/what is god. I kept that as a leisure activity along with other pubescent interests. That included the social sciences too. I try to stick to the basics even with social sciences/topics. For example, history is for idiots; economics is interesting when it can be mathematical but it is usually wrong and unrealistic then; politics and I just don't match. There are obvious problems with such an attitude. Let me explain with examples some of the basic principles I use in the social world and its obvious problems. 1. Nuclear weapons: I am against nuclear weapons. But, I am not against nuclear energy projects. If I am ok with conventional weapons, which can be equally horrific, why am I so against nuclear weapons? Blame it on a documentary I watched as a kid on the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is a nuclear weapon a deterrent? No one has used it recently only because it has not been with a foolish person for too long. In 1998, when India flexed its muscles with such power, I attended protest meetings in the academic circle. At one such seminar, I refused to sign the protest letter to be published or sent to the government. I told the protesters, "Is there a sensible person who can be against our protest? But, I can't sign this letter because it seems to be more of an advertisement for some left party?" The response was, "What is wrong if the left is behind it?" Even then, I didn't like to be left, right or center. First principle: always stand alone and raise your voice. That is a sure recipe for disaster and isolation. But, I like such voices. I search for such voices in every protest. It is not surprising that I hear very little of that. 2. Death penalty: I am against the death penalty. (Don't shout, "Go to Pak." Listen.) I was against the hanging of Kasab. Even though I could have been his victim. The night those creeps terrorised Mumbai, I had to contact my entire team and check if they were ok. That was well before dawn. One team member really gave me a fright. When I finally managed to reach him, he said, "Oh, I am in Chennai. What's happening there?" I could have been at the Taj. Or on those streets. That is the only part of Mumbai I like. If I had come across Kasab, he would have killed me. I would have tried to kill him. No hatred really involved, I think. Like soldiers who don't kill with hatred. They just have to kill. But if I had managed to capture Kasab, would I have killed him?No. How about in an 'encounter'? No. Through a court of law? No. I would have let him rot in prison like the Unabomber. I might have to pay for that. So be it. What if he had killed people close to me? I hope I would stick to my basic principle. That is the problem with the social world. Are there crimes I might be tempted to use the death penalty?Child molesters would top that list. But is it really a deterrent? Consider the death penalty for murdering rapists. Do you think a well-off person with privileges will get the death penalty, even if he/she rapes and murders the victim, threatens and kills relatives and anyone who protests? Study the statistics. Read the news. 3. CAA: When the State, that is, the government steps into religion, I see red. As if they don't have anything else to do. A dear friend commented on the CAA, in a tweet to the PM, "Hey, what about atheists?" No reply. Of course. I do not know what is going to happen with the toxic combo of CAA, NRC and NPR. The majority will play ball because they are not affected. Voluntary disclosure will become mandatory through bureaucratic gobbledygook. Political parties might lose interest if they lose votes and elections. I have listened to some protests in the anti-CAA camp. Some are against all types of illegal migrants. I can understand the anguish of those who think their land will be taken over by outsiders. I can understand those who think we are too poor. I can understand them. I don't agree with them. Why can't they stick to the basics? A good government would not have mentioned religion. That is not their business. It will be interesting to hear the Supreme Court say, some day in the far future when their judgement would be irrelevant, that the Act is constitutional. Oh, I am just predicting. I have listened to some protests in the pro-CAA camp too. Some quote the triple talak and say, "Government had to get into religion then. Why not now?" Yeah. Why didn't the government do something about the bigger crime of men abandoning and not supporting their legally-wed wife? Why don't you go and meet the people in Family Courts struggling with creepy lawyers and judges? Ask them if they would prefer some form of triple talak to get out of a prolonged legal tussle. Some bring in the reservation and say, "Government excludes some people then." It is tough to argue with educated morons that reservation is required to put excluded people at all levels of the social hierarchy. I can imagine the immediate response. "You fool, don't you know that there are some who have land and wealth but just won't join the job circus." I wouldn't even bother replying, "O ye idiot, don't you know he/she is not trying for a job because they don't see much of a future in that when no one of their group is in high office, and hardly anyone at the middle level either?" Look at statistics. These arguments are not fool-proof. That is the problem in the social world. Stick to the basics. That is the best argument in the social world. Only if people are decent human beings. "Hey, what about atheists?"