Friday, 19 December 2014

Knightian Uncertainty, Class Domination & Market Democracy


Knightian uncertainty is risk that can't be measured. Ellsberg's paradox highlights our 'ambiguity aversion' towards Knightian Uncertainty.
If Markets capture all relevant information, it follows that they will be characterised by hedging effects (i.e. comonotonicity is violated) and so no straightforward Choquet Expected Utility model can gain purchase.
Class domination in a Market Democracy can arise if inequalities in Income give rise to differences in asset endowments (including Human and 'Social' Capital) such that further Income inequality is generated.
Clearly for this to occur, a class of assets must exist which always yield positive returns.
Under Knightian uncertainty no such class of assets can be assumed to exist nor is there any Coasian workaround for the Market (because hedging effects arise) 'internalizing' the Choquet integral.

Thus, though Class Domination under Market Democracy may or may not arise, we have no a priori way of parsing the question unless it is posited that 'ambiguity aversion' is an artifact and no Knightian Uncertainty actually obtains.
However, this is to throw the baby out with the bathwater because, absent Knightian Uncertainty, Market Democracy wouldn't be desirable. (If all Risk is measurable, the market solution is easily dominated and, instead of Democracy, we'd just have a once and for all Social Contract. This holds trivially if resources are used up in the functioning of the Market and /or the Democratic process.)
Thus Market Democracy can't 'sanction' anything including 'class domination'  because it is the Knightian future fitness landscape itself  which decides what outcome obtains. (All assets are hedges which could be wiped out. There is no way to both have a Market and also devise a Choquet type workaround. Factor in cognitive bias and being rich today could well be a recipe for being the poorest of the poor tomorrow.)

Now, we can still have a debate on this topic but it will have to be couched in the language of evidential decision theory and, at the margin, will cash out as speculative General Systems bullshit. It can't have any prescriptive or regulative role.

Ultimately as Alan Kirman points out, 'representative agent models' are worthless because no Social or Biological process can be modeled in that way provided we evolved by Natural Selection.

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

Beslan to Peshawar- one Professor's perspective

Children butchered at two schools, one in Belsan a decade ago, the other in Peshawar today- and after the tears are shed a numbed world turns back to its quotidian tasks with some vague impression that dem Islamists be crazy.
The truth about Beslan, of course, had more to do with hostility between 2 small nationalities, both Muslim, the Ingush and the Ossettians, in a remote Mountainous region. Chechen Islamists masterminded the earlier atrocity and, it appears, some foreign Islamists (Arabic speaking it has been suggested) were involved in the one we are still reeling from today. 
This raises the question, is the incomprehensible attack on Peshawar similarly not actually about Islamic extremism but rather some internecine ethnic conflict among remote peoples whose identities we muddle together?
Peshawar was always part of British India. After Independence, it was integrated into the Pakistani State. The Tehreek-e-Taliban, however, which has claimed credit for yesterday's atrocity, is based in the 'Federally Administered Tribal Area' (FATA) where the writ of the Pakistani Govt. emphatically did not run. 
For 55 years, this area was independent in all but name. Then, after 9/11, the Americans put a nuclear gun to Pakistan's Military Dictator's head and his troops began a slow process of negotiating, with carrot and stick, some degree of authority. That project failed. Does the attack on the Army School in Peshawar signal the outbreak of total war between Pakistanis and those tribes whose recognition of Pakistani suzerainty was purely nominal or provisional?

As with Beslan, we will never know the truth because we aren't interested in the truth because it doesn't affect our interests. What about people from Peshawar, some at least of whom have relatives or ancestors in FATA? They may learn the truth, or already possess it, but it isn't their interest to cling to it. Instead they will tell us silly stories.
Here is an article about Pakistan by a learned Professor from that part of the World.  He tells us that the reason Pakistan is so fucked up is because it's like real insecure coz Partition was like so traumatic dude.
In an extraordinary display of ignorance, he describes Hyderabad and Junagadh as Muslim majority states.
'The partition protocols had given the subcontinent’s princely states the right to accede to Pakistan or India. Among these were three large Muslim-majority states: Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir. India forcefully annexed the first two - 'The third had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a 77 percent Muslim population. In a controversial move, the British had awarded India a land corridor to Kashmir. Fearing that Kashmir would suffer the fate of Junagadh and Hyderabad, members of Pakistan’s military and political establishments conspired to infiltrate tribal militants into the valley. Alarmed by insurgent advances, the maharaja appealed to India’s British governor general, Lord Mountbatten, who agreed to intervene if the maharaja signed the instrument of accession. In short order, Indian troops marched in and beat back the tribesmen, triggering the first shooting war between the two nascent states.'

Pakistan got nervous and invaded Kashmir, except it didn't really, it sent in tribal irregulars, but then the Indians got a legal invitation to march in and defend the Kashmiris who were being raped and massacred by those irregulars so the upshot was Pakistan got less of Kashmir than it felt entitled to which is why it's got a license to behave like a spoiled child for all eternity.
Still today, of all days, the question is urgent for the whole World,  how are we to avoid atrocities like Peshawar and Beslan?
If Muslims kill neighboring Muslims, who may differ somewhat in terms of clan or tribe or whatever, then clearly India must hand over Kashmir and like disband its Army and not get angry if terrorists turn up to bomb its Parliament or Taj Hotel or some other scenic spot where they can pose for selfies before blowing themselves up. 
Till Pakistan gets its hands on 4 million Muslims in Kashmir (there are about as many Ahmediyas being currently persecuted in Pakistan coz Bhutto suddenly decided they weren't actually Muslims) more and more atrocities like the Peshawar School atrocity are bound to happen.
Nothing to do with Genocidal Gangsters instrumentalizing Islamist Jihad at all. Nor bein pensant professors talking Civil Society Shite on the International Conference Circuit.
Nope, just hand over Kashmir and Palestine and Southern Spain and Coastal Thailand and any other place which has hot chicks and you just see everything will be fine.

I copy and paste the following from a comment on 3 quarks (since deleted) about this Professor's article.

1) Junagadh wasn't, as the Professor says, a large state. It was tiny. But the Professor wants to prove that Pakistan felt vulnerable at its inception. It didn't at all. It got a proportionately larger share of the British Indian Army and was in a position to use Muslims within India against the Congress regime. Indeed, Liaqat by a stroke of genius had opened the door to an alliance with the Leftists. The big tactical mistake was in not cultivating the Princes so as to give Congress a 'moth eaten' Hindustan. Jinnah's offer to the Maharaja of Kashmir might well have been accepted had the irregulars not invaded- though it must be said the Dogra regime had only been able to keep Poonch with British help and it's overthrow in that region was inevitable. What was not inevitable was that the Muslims of the Kashmir Valley would recoil so drastically from integration into Pakistan.  Here it was the indiscipline and savagery of the irregulars which was the clinching factor. Pakistan blundered hugely by using the tribal levies as a 'plausibly deniable' proxy. But, their use was not dictated by fear of India's might but rank opportunism and romantic dreams of glory.

The Professor ignores all this. He pretends that Pakistan was as vulnerable as Hyderabad. Why? Was Jinnah as stupid as the Nizam? Was the Pakistani army a bunch of jokers like the Razakars? Was Pakistan 85 percent Hindu? Did any Pakistani seriously believe that India could do to their country what they had done to the Nizam's Kingdom?
Suppose the Valley had sided with the irregulars. Suppose they had risen up. What forces could India airlift to bring to bear upon the situation? They wouldn't have had so much as an air-strip in the Valley.
The Professor says Pakistan was born out of a calamity and so felt vulnerable. But its leaders engineered that calamity and felt stronger, not weaker, after it was shown to be irreversible. Afghanistan ceased to be a threat and itself became vulnerable- that's why they killed Liaqat- once Jinnah showed the Tribal belt that he was reversing the British 'Forward Policy' and was going to let them breathe free.

2) Pakistani existential insecurity in the face of a mighty neighbor did not starve the Civilian sector. On the contrary, it grew rapidly. So did the Military but there was no crowding out effect- on the contrary, Pakistan's well-trained Army coupled with its suave diplomats won generous support and not just from the West.

The fact is, West Pakistan developed far more rapidly than gerontocratic Gandhian India. Industrially, educationally and at the level of nutrition and development indices it was a far cry from 'nanga bhuka Hindustan' (naked, hungry, India). Fatima Jinnah, it is true, played a mischievous role in condemning the Indus Water treaty- which had removed the one existential threat to West Pakistan's continuing prosperity. However, it must be said, Pakistan failed to capitalize on its tremendous agricultural potential preferring PL480 shipments which harmed the agricultural class. The Kashmiri front of the '65 war was, it is true, a shambles. The Muslims of the Valley refused to join hands with the infiltrators because memories of the savagery of the tribal levies was still too fresh.
Pakistan needed to manufacture another 'hazratbal' incident or else spend money more lavishly prior to infiltration. But, Ayub Khan can't be blamed too much. The fact is Pakistan's position was never stronger on this issue than in '63/'64. Most people thought it the thing was in the bag. Perhaps, if Nehru had lived another couple of years, the Valley would indeed have come to Pakistan without a shot being fired. By then the Indians were looking fearfully towards their North East Frontier. Pakistani Generals who wanted to put pressure on the Siliguri corridor (which would have enthused the Bengali officers) were ignored. Still the fact remains, '65 was an error of over-confidence. It wasn't a panicked reaction to Indian military build up.

3) The Army did not 'intervene directly to subvert democracy'. The civilians held no elections. There was no democracy to subvert. Had Liaqat not been assassinated the story might have been different. Still, it was he who brought in Ayub as CinC. Iskandar Mirza, lest we forget, was that amphibious thing a soldier-bureaucrat typical of the Imperial Political Service. He died in penurious exile after his Curry House failed.

The Pakistan Army has a remarkable record for preserving esprit de corps and the chain of command. By comparison, the Bangladesh Army was a shambles. Dog ate dog with a vengeance. Wives of officers were not spared during the recent mutiny- one aim of which was the right to serve in U.N. Peace Keeping missions!

The Army has toppled elected men- scoundrels without exception- but only because not to do so would imperil its own ethos, its own chain of command. This is not an entirely bad thing. The alternative would have been internecine conflict within the armed forces- Generals shelling Generals.

People joke that Pakistan is not a State with an Army but an Army with a State. Yes, but at least the Army is united. Not till this ceases to be true will Pakistan be a failed State.

Contra the Professor, the Army did not suddenly 'begin to see itself the custodian of the Nation'. It had always done so. After the death of Liaqat, no one else did or had.

The Professor says that the Army needed all Pakistanis 'to feel as vulnerable as the Muslims of middle India'. Nonsense. In the josh session, does the officer say to his men 'Sound the alarm! The Hindu hordes are at the gate!'

Not at all. What you have is a sort of Mard-e-Momin or Islamic Superman philosophy based on invulnerability not vulnerability, attack not defense, asymmetric improvisatory tactical belligerence not in-depth strategic deterrence.

The fact is, in 1971 people in Lahore feared Indian bombs. In 2001 they didn't.

That is the Army's achievement.

Imran Khan may come or he may go or may be offered a follow on. Why speak of him as the Army's creature? Everybody is the Army's creature. Pakistan- tragically orphaned at too tender an age- is what it is for weal or woe thanks to the Army. Today, of all days, we should remember the courage and sacrifice of not just officers and men, but also their families. Even little children have not been spared.

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Ghalib- ghazal 94

barshkāl-e giryah-e ʿāshiq hai dekhā chāhiye
khil gaʾī mānind-e gul sau jā se dīvār-e chaman
ulfat-e gul se ġhalat̤ hai daʿv;ā-e vā-rastagī
sarv hai bā vaṣf-e āzādī giriftār-e chaman

The season of rainfall for lovelorn lashes should be viewed to expose
The garden wall in a hundred gashes gaping lewd like the rose 
From such floral passion what choral salvation can arise?
Not the loftiest cypress escapes Paradise


Note- The word "paradise" entered English from the French paradis, inherited from the Latinparadisus, from Greek parádeisos(παράδεισος), from an Old Iranian word1]attested in Avestan as pairi-daêza-.[2][3] The literal meaning of this Eastern Old Iranian language word is "walled (enclosure)",[2]from pairi- "around" and -diz "to create (a wall)".[4] 

Namit Arora- stupidest blogger on 3 Quarks

Update- 3 quarks has removed the comments quoted below. Still feel like giving them your money?

3 Quarks Daily sounds like a high I.Q type of place don't it? At first blush, that's exactly what it is. There's always some smart Sciency stuff linked to as well as desperate appeals for money- I didn't read the small print but think they burn it as a Green alternative to wife-swapping or something equally chichi.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that it gives off a sort of toney vibe and is edited by aristocratic Pakistanis who probably dress up like Arianna Huffington to bum each other. To be clear, I'm not saying that they bum each other. Just that they would dress up like Arianna Huffington if that's what they'd decided to do after mature reflection and a penis transplant.
Mention of which organ brings me to Namit Arora- the retarded Hindu monkey whom the sophisticated Pakistani editors have on a leash to fling feces at us from time to time.
What is Namit's major malfunction?
His English is perfectly serviceable. He isn't a drooling nutjob. He puts some effort into his posts.
Unfortunately, he is as stupid as shit.
This is Namit on public perception re. rape in Delhi-  'Anyone trying to analyze the issue must at least ask: who are the rapists, where do they rape, and how common is rape in Delhi? The latest 2014 data on rape from Delhi Police is a great place to start, not the least because it challenges the conventional wisdom of Delhiites and their media and politicians. It shows that, as in other countries and consistent with previous years in Delhi, men known to the victims commit the vast majority of rapes—96 percent in Delhi. These men include friends, neighbours, ‘relatives such as brother-in-law, uncle, husband or ex-husband and even father.’ More than 80 percent of them rape inside the home of the victim or of the accused. Strangers commit only 4 percent of rapes, which are also likelier to be reported. Yet so many people fixate on this latter scenario and conclude from it that Delhi is unsafe for women to go out by themselves.'
Okay, you may be saying to yourself, so our boy Namit doesn't know from Statistics. But, Namit studied engineering at IIT and has a Post Grad in something I.T related and worked in Silicon Valley!
He does too know Statistics. What he doesn't know is human beings.
Suppose the following two statements are true.
1)  99.9 per cent of all fatal stabbings in the heart are not self-inflicted.
2) 80 percent of all fatal self inflicted stabbings involve the slashing of the throat.
Can we conclude that if you want to survive a self-inflicted stabbing, you should stab yourself in the heart?
Of course not. You don't need to know Stats to decide this one. We are human beings and we have all sorts of extra information which the 2 statements given above don't capture.
For example, we know that the heart is a vital organ. Stab yourself in the fatty portion of the arm or the thigh and you are likely to survive. Don't stab yourself in the heart unless you really want to die.

The reason such a small proportion of women get raped by strangers is because women in Delhi tend to be extra careful when going out. Why are they so careful? Is it because they are all very very stupid and need Mr. Namit Arora to come from Amrika to tell them they have nothing to fear? Will Delhi turn into a paradise for women if they learn from Namit?
But what great lesson does he have for them?
Can it really be the following?-
'Instead of sleeping in your bed- where you are more likely to be raped- you should go and sleep in the street. If you see some strange men drinking in a deserted building, go and lie down next to them. They are not family members or friends or acquaintances of yours. Furthermore, you are not inside a home. What are you waiting for? Just go and lie down next to those drunken thugs. You won't get raped.'

Is it a good thing that Delhi women are afraid to go out at night? No. Delhi needs the economic power of its women. If women are safe from rape when going out there will be more economic activity and thus more tax revenue to pay for things like improved policing. Not just women, men too will be safer. Rapists who operate in public places also rob and beat men. Everyone, except a small percentage of criminal psychopaths is made better off if Policing improves in Delhi. That's why, two years ago, the whole of Delhi united in outrage against shoddy policing which led to the avoidable rape and brutal killing of a young trainee-physiotherapist.

Arora thinks the people of Delhi are stupid to have reacted like this. He says 'Strangers this year committed about 8 rapes per month in Delhi, the second largest city in the world with 25 million people. In London, a third as populated as Delhi, strangers committed about 36 rapes per month—a rate 13X Delhi’s. By comparison, Delhi seems significantly safer for women. Other Indian metros are even safer than Delhi. Could this really be true?'

The brief answer is 'no, it isn't true'. Delhi women have very much lower level of social inclusion and economic participation, especially during the night or in under-policed areas, than London. Why? Because of their 'justified true belief' that large parts of Delhi are unsafe for women after dark.
If Delhi want's to stay competitive, this must change.

Arora doesn't get that human beings, unlike silicon chips, alter their behavior on the basis of expectations. In London, if there are a number of sex-attacks in an area, women change their pattern of behavior. They ensure that Policing is beefed up. Ultimately, people move out of high crime areas- they vote with their feet.

Arora thinks fear of rape in Delhi is an example of 'cognitive bias'. It isn't. An attractive woman who walks alone down the highway at midnight in Delhi will definitely be accosted. A car or a truck will pull up and she will be bundled into it and driven away at speed. Not every woman will be raped but it is high risk behavior. In London, if I see a woman on her own who appears at risk, I call the police. They turn up within ten to fifteen minutes (at least round where I live). They talk to the girl and make sure she gets home safely. What makes this possible is London's much higher police to public ratio (though this is changing).

 If all women made it a point to roam around at night- imposing perhaps a 'Nishabandh' or curfew- no doubt the problem will disappear. However, in a situation where, at the margin, the number of women economically active at night is still very small then it makes sense for Policing to be beefed up till more and more women 'reclaim the night' and the problem disappears by itself.

Arora is of a different view. He thinks the privatized media have created a non-existent problem to drive ratings. In other words, Indian women are stupid and have an irrational fear of roaming around late at night. The Media, which is 'patriarchal' plays up this fear so as to force women to remain at home where they will be raped instead of going out and sleeping in the street next to some bunch of drunken hoodlums who won't lay a finger on them because they have not been properly introduced.
This last is an important point which Namit's genius has uncovered. If you commit one rape of a stranger, you are then obligated to rape 25 of your acquaintances because otherwise the 4% ceiling is breached. This is the true reason, Delhi's women would be safer sleeping on the street than staying at home. I may mention, husbands statistically make up a large percentage of rapists. Women should never sleep with their husbands because statistically they are much much more likely to be raped by their husband than by a stranger.
'But a downside of this media coverage has been that most people not only continue to conflate the 4 percent of ‘stranger rapes’ with the whole problem of rape, they imagine its incidence to be much higher than it is. As a result, people have ended up with a heightened sense of fear for women being raped when they venture out by themselves—above and beyond their longstanding dread of women being catcalled, ogled, stalked, or groped in public transportation. The latter are the primary threats that women have long encountered in Delhi’s public spaces and they fuel a legitimate sense of insecurity; this perhaps makes it easier for the extensive coverage of ‘stranger rapes’, uncommon though they are, to unreasonably heighten their sense of insecurity.' 
Is Namit aware that the rapist typically begins his assault with verbal harassment, followed up by groping? If a woman is too terrified to fight back and if she receives no aid, Namit thinks her assailant will say 'sorry, Ma'am, can't rape you due to that would be to conflate groping/harassment with rape. There is no connection between the two.'

The odd thing about Namit's post is that the Pakistani editor of 3 quarks thinks it is 'well  argued'.
The following is from the comment section-
Kiren Bedi is a veteran police woman who knows Delhi well. She has described how Delhi can be made safer. Namit Arora is not interested in making Delhi safer. He wants to talk about 'Patriarchy'. Why?
  • Saudi Arabia is patriarchal. So are most Swiss cantons. German domestic law is way more patriarchal than India's. So what?
    Do dads really want their daughters raped? Do grand-dads get a kick out of hearing their grand-daughter was brutally raped and killed? If this so called 'Patriarchy' invests money in female college education, is it because it wants educated women to be raped and killed or because it wants to boost Joint family disposable income?
    Namit thinks scolding some supposed 'Upper Caste' Patriarchy helps women. It doesn't. It is foolish. Listening to Kiren Bedi, strenghtening Aanganwadi etc. is sensible. Arora won't do it.





  • This article is somewhat misleading. Delhi presents certain unique features
    1) the Police is not under the control of the elected Govt. but under the Centre
    2) A disproportionate level of protection is given to VIPs and this all too visibly affects resource availability and response times
    3) Police check points fall into abeyance absent a Security threat even though there is no sound reason for this
    4) Vast distances and danger of suspects escaping to bordering states
    5) Nexus between 'village elders' in newly developed areas and Station S.H.O's- i.e. 'khap panchayat' reactionary attitudes gain salience.
    The result is that Delhi is indeed unsafer than Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, Kolkatta, but also Patna and Lucknow- not to mention Ahmedabad where young girls are free to ride scooters and meet their friends late at night. Of course, Delhi has always been a collection of cities with vast empty spaces interspersed. In many ways, rapid development has filled in those spaces but Policing levels have not responded.
    Criminologists and senior Police officers have put forward a sensible plan which can eliminate a lot of such crimes. However, so long as the Centre retains control of Policing in the Capital, bureaucratic red-tape and 'turf wars' will prevent sensible steps being taken.
    Women only Police Stations and 'Aanganwadi' cells in poorer neighbourhoods are vital.
    Namit Arora asks 'If we do the math, Delhi still registers a lower incidence of rape than most of the 76 U.S. cities in the DoJ list. Indeed, why aren’t the Americans nowhere near as fearful of rape in their public spaces as Indians are in theirs?'. If he has visited Delhi he would know the answer. Delhi women don't venture out into 'public spaces' after a certain hour. In other words, Delhi has lower rape because the likelihood is higher and women act rationally. The former Chief Minister of Delhi herself confessed that her daughter did not venture out at night because she felt unsafe in Delhi. Yet, her friends in Ahmedabad would think nothing of getting on their scooters to meet up for a mid night snack.
    Is Modi's Gujerat a matriarchal paradise compared to Delhi? No. Policing is under the control of the elected Govt. and the people don't want vicious rapes occurring on their streets.
    Arora ways- 'if Delhi’s public spaces are unsafe, it’s not due to the likelihood of rape.' Clearly he has discovered a concept of 'Likelihood' far different from that of standard Bayesian analysis. A place is unsafe if rape can occur there. Lack of safety is highly correlated with crimes of violence.
    Suppose Delhi's public spaces were both unsafe and had low likelihood of rape. Then it must be the case that the people whose criminal conduct makes Delhi unsafe are not interested in forcible sex. Perhaps Arora believes that Delhi's criminal element are all eunuchs. They enjoy beating and robbing people but have no interest in forcible sexual intercourse.
    Is this a reasonable belief?
    One might say 'the Indian male is a purely spiritual being. He considers all females as his mothers and sisters. Even when he beats and kills people- thus rendering a public space unsafe- he would never dream of raping anyone until and unless the ' caste patriarchy of Delhi’s mainstream media and politicians—including the liberal ones' somehow brainwashes him.'
    Is Arora a particularly reactionary member of a 'Hindutva' organisation? Does he believe 'rape never happens in 'Bharat' (traditional India) and only occurs where the 'liberal' media has influence?
    Arora says 'Groping and other harassment are serious issues that need to be dealt with, but it doesn’t help to conflate them with rape'. Is he right?
    The fact is groping and harassment are the initial stages of rape. If you can prevent a person groping you, no rape can occur. If people are locked up for harassment, including stalking, their capacity to rape is curtailed.
    Arora thinks we should blame 'Patriarchy'. Why? Do fathers really want their daughters to be raped? If women are seen as property, is it not also the case that Patriarchy does not want that property to be coercively trespassed upon?
    Arora quotes Adrienne Rich ‘The woman’s body is the terrain on which patriarchy is erected.’ In patriarchy, the female is not only seen as property—first her father’s, then husband’s—her sexual sanctity and propriety become central to these men’s izzat, or dignity and honor.
    In other words, Patriarchy is highly incentive compatible for rape prevention.
    The Brahmin Agraharam is more patriarchal than the Tribal Gotul. It has less rape. Why? Patriarchy minimises opportunities for rape- which is an opportunistic crime. No doubt, it permits marriage and other types of prostitution which, twisting words somewhat, one may classify as rape. That is a different discussion.
    The fact is women in Delhi face greater likelihood of sexual harrassment, groping, rape and murder, than their sisters in most other metros. The Indian public acted rationally in pressuring the Govt to implement changes advocated by senior Police Women, like Kiran Bedi. Their ire led to the election of a Third Party candidate who promised to make the Police answerable to the elected Govt.
    Empty talk of 'caste based Patriarchy' is a red herring.
    Matriarchal or matrilocal communities in India have far higher incidence of opportunistic rape and trafficking. Compulsory ritual prostitution was and is a feature of purely Female power structures.
    Arora says 'Only in a society saturated with caste patriarchy do certain rapes by strangers, and not other violence against women, generate calls for killing the offenders.'
    Is he correct?
    Suppose what he writes is true. Then Evolutionary Biology- Hamilton kin-selection, the Price equation etc- is false. A stranger comes along and rapes and kills one of our women. We don't revenge ourselves upon him so as to send a signal, because... well, we didn't really evolve by natural selection at all.
    God made us in his image. Someone rapes and kills your daughter. You offer him a nice pakora and cuppa tea. Everything is hunky dory. Then some evil 'caste patriarchy of Delhi’s mainstream media and politicians—including the liberal ones' brainwashes you. Suddenly you snatch the pakora out of his hand and start baying for the fellow's blood.
    What, oh what are we to do?
    The answer is, we should study the writings of Namit Arora instead of demanding proper accountable policing in Delhi.
    Will women in Delhi be safer if we implement Arora's proposal (as opposed to Kiran Bedi's)?
    No.
    Rape is linked to sex-trafficking. Even if everyone is properly sensitivised, women will be raped- if they fight back they will be killed, clearly such women are not merchandisable- and then, once their spirit is broken, they will be sold on.
    What if we have compulsory 'Gender sensitivity' training. It may cost about half of India's GNP and take 25 years to properly implement but once it is up and running will rape disappear?
    No. Sociopaths will continue to exist and if the domestic supply falls short, foreigners can fill the gap. So much for Arora's first suggestion- viz. '(1) changing minds through efforts like better gender and sex education in schools, more public debate and cultural conversation on gender equality, deeper reflection on the magnitude of our obsession with ‘stranger rape’ versus our apathy to the more pervasive structural violence of female foeticide, child marriage, and trafficking.' I may mention that only Arora is obsessed with 'stranger rape'. Everybody else just doesn't want their daughter or wife or work colleague or whatever raped by anyone at all. That is why rape is considered a crime. It would be a waste of resources to devote resources to changing minds when only one mind, that of Namit Arora, holds a perverse and mischievous view.
    What of his second point? viz.-'(2) reforming our civic institutions—the police, the courts, legislative bodies, and the media—so they’re more efficient, responsive, and friendlier to a wider cross-section of women in India.'
    For a reform to be better than what went before, the reformer must be at least as smart and knowledgable as those who currently wield power. However, Arora's prescriptions are based on the notion that
    1) Human beings did not evolve by natural selection
    2) Bayesian Likelihood Estimators are false.
    3) Delhi, unlike any other metro, has a uniquely evil 'caste patriarchy of... media and politicians—including the liberal ones' with magical powers to brainwash its people.


    • In conclusion, women want an end to sexual violence NOW. The tax revenue working women in Delhi contribute to the exchequer more than makes up for the extra cost. Women are not asking for some special favour. The facts speak for themselves. Industry needs female labour power 24/7. Delhi is not an agricultural region nor are its expenses defrayed by levies on the feudal hinterland. On the contrary, the working women of Delhi pay for Village development.
      Protecting women from rape also helps men. The gang that rapes also robs. There is a nexus between career criminals and corrupt politics.
      Everybody in Delhi already knows this. The people acted rationally by taking up the 'Nirbhayya' issue. Arora projects something that only exists in his own mind onto the 'great unwashed' of Delhi- whose English may not be as elegant as his, but whose thinking is actually much more progressive.
      Back in the Sixties, we often used to hear that Gender issues were irrelevant to the Struggle. 'Come the Revolution' everything would be peachy. Women needed to take a back-seat and provide comfort to the 'comrades'.
      The Feminists of the early Seventies were derided as evil harridans. Shulamith Firestone went mad. Germaine Greer- who had been raped but didn't feel able to report it (nor did Jill Craigie who was raped by Arthur Koestler)- did a volte face in the Eighties (Sex & Destiny).
      The suffering of women of such calibre, whatever their personal shortcomings, was not lost on the generation which came of age in the Eighties and Nineties.
      I regard this post by Mr. Namit Arora to be unconscionably retrograde, ignorant and condescending.
      Why has 3Quarks published this?

Monday, 15 December 2014

Kabir, Rampal & Googoo vs Soossoo

Counter-currents.org has a meretricious article on Sant Rampal's recent arrest penned by a retired Sikh journalist named Jaspal Singh Sidhu.
 Instead of pointing the finger at 'vote bank' politics (politicians believe that a 'godman's' disciples vote according to his whim and the police fear the politicians more than the Courts)- the article suggests there is an Aryan/non-Aryan divide in Haryana of all places! This despite the fact that Rampal, like most of his Arya Samaj enemies, is a Jat.
Kafila, predictably enough re-printed this rubbish.

 I copy and paste it here- only to highlight my own two comments  at the end which are highly thought provoking and distill the essence of Indian Liberation Theology in a truly canonical manner.

'The arrest of former public servant -turned-godman 63-year-old Rampal from his Barwala (Hissar) ashram seems to have ended the two-week long much publicized drama enacted by the Haryana police, but it has, rather, widened social and religious gulf among the people of the area . The police operation took life of five women and a child, injuring of many others including two dozen media persons covering the event. Technically, Rampal’s arrest was sought by the Punjab and Haryana high court in a case of ‘criminal contempt of court’ following his persistent in refusal to appear before the court.
(The truth is more complicated. The Hisar bar association went on strike because Rampal's devotees roughed them up.  The Court took action because Rampal was blatantly making a mockery of them.)
The Barwala event signals much more than what one gathers from the media. Rampal’s abortive defiance appears to be (consciously or unconsciously) challenging the hegemony of the Sangh Privar ideology based on Aryans and non- Aryans divide which uses the Vedic literature as manifestation of the Aryan race.
(Sheer nonsense. Rampal is a Jat- that's Aryan. He claims to be the reincarnation of Guru Nanak, a Kshatriya Aryan. True, he also claims to be the reincarnation of Kabir- a low caste weaver- but then he also claims to be God. Kabir, incidentally, spoke an Aryan language. No one claims he was Dravidian or Adivasi.)
The media story, invariably, only covers the present happenings. And, it is meant for the consumption of general public only interested in the day-to-day developments. For obvious reasons, such reporting suits both the government of the day and the media outlets. By and large, the media (newspapers and TV channels) reels out largely that information (official version) which police and official machinery serves them with punctuation of a little-bit material on the root cause of the controversy which has climaxed to the dramatic custody of Rampal by the police.
(If the media does not give currency to Sidhu's views it is because they are utterly and ludicrously false.)
The Barwala development has at least a century and half (150 years-old) old history behind it. The resurgence of Arya Samaj in erstwhile Punjab, of which Haryana was a part, took on all shades of monotheistic religious practices. Swami Dayananda Saraswati , the founder of the Arya Samaj ,came on the Punjab scene in 1870s and became the strong critic of “ heterodox” religious schools like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. He detested “religious impurities”, he claimed to have found in above mentioned religions and also abhorred the ‘local languages’ in which these religions were expressed. Dayananda, a staunch votary of Vedas, was of the view that Sanskrit was the only language that could become the vehicle of spiritual, philosophical and lofty ideas.
(Yet the Arya Samaj dropped Sanskrit in favor of Hindi in its Schools at precisely this time. All sects vigorously denounced each other then as now. However, this did not prevent people having multiple identities- e.g. being a Sikh while also patronizing Temples or being a Brahmin and also attending Gurudwara. This remains true, by and large, to this day.)
Swami Dayananda published his book, ‘Satyarth Prakash’ ( Light of Truth) in 1875 and attacked Guru Nanak whom he addressed as ‘dhurta’, meaning rogue and charlatan. He called the Sikh holy book as ‘mithya’ ( false) and the Sikhism as ‘jaal’ (a snare, a trap). This led to a clash between the Sikhs and followers of Arya Samaj belonging to upper Hindu castes and a elite business and educated section having base in Lahore and Amritsar. That confrontation between the Sikhs and the Punjabi Hindu carrying Arya Samaj religious trappings has been continuing till today with periodic manifestations in various forms of clashes over a century including that of latest Punjab problem and the Sikh pogrom of 1984 in independent India.
(Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. Haryana parted from Punjab because it is Hindu majority while the Sikhs wanted a state in which they were the majority. Rampal and his enemies are Haryanvi Jat Hindus.)
The holy Sikh scripture includes more than a hundred hymns of Bhagat Kabir, besides carrying the latter’s broad religious concepts as ‘naam’, ‘the creator and unfathomable’ as opposed to Vedanta and Vaisnavism with all its adjutants like asceticism, caste-system and withdrawal from the life.
(So what? Sikh scriptures include compositions by Muslims. This did not prevent the ethnic cleansing of East Punjab.)
During his visit to Punjab, Swami Dayananda in 1877-78, initiated ‘Shuddhi’ campaign meaning ‘purification movement’ to reclaim Christian converts from the Sikhs back to the Hindu fold. Later, his successors began the direct conversion from the poor Sikhs at public ceremonies and sowed the seeds of permanent tensions in Hindu-Sikh relations.
(Sidhu is a Sikh.  That is why he is raking this up.  But the Rampal/Arya Samaj conflict has nothing to do with Sikhs. Does Sidhu accept that Rampal is the incarnation of Guru Nanak? Does he accept that Rampal is God? No. He is simply venting his spleen at Hindus.
Reverently his disciples call him ‘Sant Rampal’ who, too, seemed to have raked up that old historical religious -cultural conflict by challenging the hegemony of Arya Samaj, now a close ally of RSS that commands over the state power, directly in Haryana through BJP chief minister Mohan Lal Khattar . Mr Khattar, is a Hindu Punjabi whose family had migrated in 1947 to Haryana from the core area of Arya Samaj now in Pakistan’s Punjab. Of late, Arya Samaj, particularly after 1947 Parition, virtually merged into the Sangh Privar expressing itself through the RSS ideology.
(Rubbish! Agnivesh started off in the Samaj. Perhaps, Sidhu is confusing the Arya Samaj with the Dera  Sacha Sauda whose pontiff is a Modi ally and on bail for murder.
As per the prevailing religious ethos in the area, Rampal was an ardent devotee of Lord Hanuman and Lord Krishna for 25 years. However, his meditating for hours and following religious practices, Rampal could not attain spiritual peace he was hankering for. This former junior engineer with Haryana's irrigation department came in contact with Swami Ramdev Anand, a follower of Saint Kabir, a 13th century Saint, hailing from the low caste and who had preached strict monotheism.
Born in 1951 in a typical rural family at Dhanana village in Sonepat , Rampal views underwent a radical change as Anand influenced him greatly. Eventually, Rampal was led to his taking 'naam'. In 1994, he was ordered by Ramdev Anand to initiate other people into taking 'naam', and he quit his government job in 1995.
His journey as a bona fide 'godman' began on a four-acre plot at Karontha village, 15 km from Rohtak which still bears a palpable influence of Aray Samaj .
Naturally, as the ‘Kabirpanth’ began sprouting in that area, Rampal’s ashram came into direct confrontation with Arya Samaj . In a violent clash that ensued between his and Arya Samaj followers a 20-year-old Sonu was killed. And he was implicated into that murder case which witnessed him behind the bars for 18 months. Those murder charges are still sticking to his person. Meantime, the followers of his ‘Kabirpanth’ and Arya Samaj have had engaged in several clashes after the 2006 murder resulting in unbridgeable social and religious divide in the area.
Rampal is family man with two sons and two daughters—all married off. His profile on his official website —jagatgururampalji.org — says he grew popular after touring Haryana as a ‘bhajan singer’, and then drew on his following within the Kabir sect to graduate to his own ‘Satlok Ashram’ (name of his religious centre) in 1999.
Rampal’s direct clash with Arya Samaj came up as he had begun criticizing their set- beliefs.
Actually it was their disbelief in his claim to being God which was the problem.
He questioned and challenged the origin and ancestry of gods (devi-devtas) and the popular interpretations of Hindu scriptures.
So do most lunatics who claim to be God.
At his congregations, Rampal has been using aggressive language claiming that "real truth" has been hidden from the people by gurus and intellectuals who have interpreted scriptures in the past. He has been drawing people from the lower middle-class as well as those who have been persecuted within popular religions including dalits and anti-Jaat castes backward castes.
Is this because he's got a lot of guns? A Jat who has lots of guns and thinks he is God is better placed to protect you, if you are not a Jat, then a Jat who thinks he is God but doesn't have a lot of guns.
"Our race is living being, mankind is our religion, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, there is no separate religion," he says on website.
Because he alone is God and everybody should bow down to him.
Arya Samaj followers-- believing in the traditional Vedic philosophy which Rampal challenges-- were the first to object to him in 2006 when he raised questions over ‘Satyarth Prakash’.
Commenting on ‘Satyarth Prakash’ Rampal says it is not “Light of Truth’ but a book of 'mithya' or myths and should be called ‘ Mithyarth Prakash’.
And that didn't make them happy? How unreasonable of them!
A clash between Arya Samaj followers and Rampal's devotees in July 2006 at the Karontha ashram saw the arrest of Rampal along with 38 of his followers on murder charges and was released on bail in 2008.
Rampal remained undeterred thereafter as he went on to set up another ‘dera’ (ashram) in Barwala, Hisar.
Today, ‘Satlok Ashram’ has 71 acres of land in Karontha and his rise has been fuelled by generous donations. Rampal also draws his followers from Punjab, UP and far away places of Madhya Pradesh.
The Haryana police used all those tactics on Rampal’s followers what Punjab police had used to raid religious places in Punjab like cutting of power and water supply and blocking the food supplies along with forcing the thinly clad poor devotees to leave the ashram. Some of the followers were even dragged to bus stands and nearby railway stations forcing them to leave the area.
But Army didn't shell the dera. No wonder Sidhu is pissed off! But Rampal didn't have a Shabegh Singh to organize his defenses did he?
Such developments, as eminent historian Romila Thapar maintains, question the stereotypes and the political narrative raised from nationalistic perspective that “Indian society has always been unchanging society, based on caste structure, ---alternatively, it was an idyllic society characterized with harmony and absence of social tensions”.
Romila Thapar may be crap but she isn't so utterly fuckwittedly crap as to think that the case of Sant Rampal raises question about 'political narrative from the nationalistic perspective'.  Any society in which Jats figure prominently aint gonna be an idyllic society characterized by harmony and the absence of social tensions. On the contrary, it is gonna abound in loony toony Godmen with guns.  Which, gotta say, is what makes Jats valuable to the Social Fabric. It's not that the rest of us aren't crazy, we're just not Jat crazy.



Comments are moderated

Comments (7)

High caste intellectuals like Romila Thapar and Sidhu are trying to befool innocent bahishrit (oppressed and excluded) people who are original inhabitants of sub continent. They are constantly building up Aryan religious leaders like Buddha, Nanak, Kabir, Dayanand Sarasvati etc. What about Googoo the simple tribal ant eater? He preached the true equality. Kabirpantis looked down on Googoo because he never wore clothes and thus did not support the weaving racket. However, Googoo never looked down on anyone. Kabir himself came to Googoo to take his blessing. 
Truth of Googoo Religion is ruthless suppressed not just by Modi Sarkar (i.e. Government of Nazi like Narendra Modi) but also by Human Beings and Plants. 
If you examine videos of so called 'arrest' of Rampal you can clearly see that all of the police are having blonde hair and speaking Yiddish and also wearing badges showing employment by C.I.A, I.S.I and other Upper Caste Gangster operations.

+2
indglish's avatar - Go to profile
indglish0p· 1 week go