Contradictions of Urban Middle Class

I find it contradictory (hypocritical is perhaps a little too strong a word) when a person (mostly with an urban middle class profile in my experience) supports economic laissez-faire but sneers at "vote bank" politics. Apparently, he can clearly see and approves of the "invisible hand" of profit motive in business but fails to see the working of a similar "invisible hand" of power motive in politics. So, while his economic understanding is based on the assumption of human nature as essentially self centered and egoistic, his political understanding inexplicably expect the same human nature to be altruistic.

What gives?

I offer the following thesis: while economically urban middle class starts off from a relatively advantageous position, it is quick to shout "let it be" (laissez-faire, literally) but politically, where its single vote counts just as much as another person's and it can not get its own way, it's equally quick to shout "vote bank politics".

P.S. Personally, I hold both the adversarial systems (capitalism in economics and electoral democracy in politics) in equal regards. To the extent I accept lassiez-faire economics, I am also fine with vote bank politics.

On Philosophy

What is Philosophy?

Before trying to answer this question, let me pose a different one- For what field of study x, does the question "what is x" fall within the realm of x itself? It's not mathematics, for what is mathematics in not a mathematical question. Neither is it science (what is science isn't a properly scientific question that can be decided empirically) nor it's politics or psychology etc. The only candidate for x that fits the above criteria seems to be philosophy. "What is philosophy" is strictly a philosophical question. In fact, all other such "what is x" type questions mentioned above are themselves philosophical questions.

Now how does this relate to the original question? I think this highlights a crucial distinction between philosophy and other specialized field of studies and it is this - for any specialized field of study, the particular aspect in which it studies reality is fixed and this aspect is given to it as if from outside; philosophy, on the other hand, is not constrained by any such boundaries. It is free to choose any and the most generic aspect under which it wants to study reality. And therefore only philosophy seems sufficiently capable of self-consciously looking at itself in a manner in which other sciences, being limited by their own definition, are not.

In fact, it is only when a particular aspect of reality under consideration becomes sufficiently articulated does it become a separate discipline. Thus what was once studied under philosophy as natural science, once it got articulated, became physics as we know it and thence got subdivided further into chemistry and biology and so on.

So, philosophy is simply an "enquiry into the unknown". And the only distinction between it and other specialized studies is a negative one - once everything is accounted for by one specialized field or the other, whatever else is left is philosophy.

The best definition that I came across for Philosophy, and which succinctly sums up my views as well, is due Wilfrid Sellars:

Philosophy is the attempt to understand how things in the most general sense of that word hang together in the most general sense of those words. 

On Identity

To me, the concept of identity seems to consist of a paradox. To define something its particular character must be highlighted but at the same time this particularity must be formulated in general terms that are in no way unique to object being defined. In effect, not only must a definition consist of contrast to something but must also simultaneously consist of similarity to something else.

For instance, let us say someone asks himself "who am I?". The two extreme forms that the answer can possibly take are - 1) I am who I am or 2) I am a being. The first answer lies on the particularist extreme, where the object is considered as something unique, as sui generis; without any common characteristics with anything else. On the other hand, the second answer lies on the generalist extreme, where the object being defined shares its definition with every existent thing. Both are logically true, in fact both are truisms. But both are useless as definitions; they give no new information at all about the object. The first answer puts the object too close to the eye, and the second one puts it too far. In either case, the object being defined is invisible.

A more useful definition will then be the one that lies somewhere in between these two extremities. It must move away from the generalistic extreme by bringing about the unique characteristics of the object ("I am a human being, an Indian and an Engineer") but at the same time these characteristics must have an existence independent of the object and thus necessarily indicate the object's similarity with certain things; the things with which the object shares these characteristics  (my Indian-ness does not owe its existence to me rather I share it with all other Indians). So,while I am distinguishing myself and highlighting my uniqueness, I have to also simultaneously highlight my similarity to certain things and characteristics. And, even though there's a strong tendency to highlight my uniqueness, I can not to go all the way to define myself in absolutely unique terms; in that case, I will come too close to the mind's eye, so to speak, and thus will become incomprehensible.

I think we understand this intuitively and thus rarely think of things or ourselves as completely unique or completely general. When people choose identities (often multiples) between these extremes, the most basic desire governing these choices perhaps is the desire to be seen and understood.

On God

 I am sometimes asked about my views regarding existence of God and invariably, unable to articulate my position vis-a-vis God, I end up saying that I am an agnostic. However, that's more because I am not really sure what it actually means to say that God exists. If what is referred to is some sort of physical existence then definitely I am an atheist (as, I suspect, every one else who will think rationally about it will be) as I haven't yet perceived any physical entity that can be called God nor have I got any reason to suspect its physical existence. However, most people don't talk of God in this physical sense, they talk of Him at a more spiritual and emotional level. They talk about the comfort and the sense of security they derive from the idea of God. Of course, there need not be any objective existence of God for such an emotional connection, a mere idea is sufficient. That placebos work is an established fact. And in so far as humans, almost universally and eternally, have had an idea of God, it's a truism that God (as an idea) exists. So, in this sense I believe that God exists.


But then in this sense the belief in existence of God is not any different than the belief in the existence of a point or a straight line. They are all concepts that reside purely in the ideal realm and are quite necessary and useful in their own way; being helpful approximations and aids to our understanding. And as I see it, God is a term man gave to the concept at which he arrived when he contemplated his limits and strove to see beyond them. When man got afraid of the nature and found it outside his control, he said nature was God. Then when he aspired to an ideal social order and found that human nature was not capable of attaining it, he invented Gods that were compassionate, just, honest and merciful. He saw in God what he desired in himself. (And isn't the same instinct at play when a particularly gifted sportsperson is termed 'God'?) It would not be stretching it too far to say that God is man's own reflection while he aspires to the impossible perfection.

Why Public Policy Matters

I recently applied for this public policy course offered by The Takshashila Institution. For one of its essays on 'Why public policy matters?', I wrote the following. 

At the very basic level, there is usually a rather surprising agreement among the various groups about the end goals to be pursued in a society; be it then eradication of poverty, removal of corruption or the establishment of an egalitarian order. What, however, differs is the means these various groups advocate for achieving these objectives.

Fortunately, since the ends are causally related to the means, these means or policies can be studied and evaluated in a scientific manner and their merits/demerits be discussed objectively. (Same thing can not, however, be said of the ends to be pursued which fall in the realm of desires and aspirations and are hence beyond any objective evaluation.)

Further, in a democratic society like India it is essential that even though the formal responsibility for policy making rests with the elected politicians, the general populace is also sufficiently capable of understanding and discussing various policy options and their nuances. For, ultimately in such societies it is the masses who decide which policy options get preference over the others.

   

Therefore, insofar as public policy provides a vocabulary to discuss and debate various issues of public importance and develops frameworks and models to objectively study and understand these issues, it is important.

Comments welcome. 

B.R.Ambedkar on Anna Hazare

Excerpts from the speech of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar delivered to the Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1949. And such was the wisdom of the man that he foresaw Anna Hazare some 62 years ago and warned us against the dangers. 

It is not that India did not know what is Democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or Parliamentary Procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments-for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments – but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of Parliamentary Procedure known to modern times. They had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding Motions, Resolutions, Quorum, Whip, Counting of Votes, Voting by Ballot, Censure Motion, Regularization, Res Judicata, etc. Although these rules of Parliamentary Procedure were applied by the Buddha to the meetings of the Sanghas, he must have borrowed them from the rules of the Political Assemblies functioning in the country in his time.

This democratic system India lost. Will she lose it a second time? I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India – where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new – there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.

If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

The second thing we must do is to observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all who are interested in the maintenance of democracy, namely, not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions”. There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered life-long services to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness. As has been well said by the Irish Patriot Daniel O’Connel, no man can be grateful at the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty. This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.

You can do far worse than reading the full speech here.

The High - Marathon

After those 42 kms, I existed only in relation to the finish line. And unlike the one that I chanced upon some 27 years ago, this was an existence of my own choosing; one that I had negotiated hard for. In the begining, I had said "I am strong"; but the hills made me walk. The sun then said "You are not strong enough"; but I walked on. "You don't have enough heart" said the altitude; "Whatever it is, it can endure", I replied. The desert tried to trick me; I persevered and it relented. And then after 06:12, there I was, humbled and proud; I wasn't much but whatever I was I was of my own creation.