Discussion and The Herd

Unity is merely an instrument that can be used for good or for bad. In itself, it has no intrinsic moral worth. It is not a value. It can at best be a precondition for pursuing some collective goals of a herd*. It is these goals that must then be examined for their moral worth.

I would argue that it is desirable -- even a moral duty -- of every member of the herd to question these goals and not merely pursue them blindly.

Being human entails autonomy and thus a capacity for moral responsibility of our own choices. This is the basis of all human rights.

But if you merely pursue the goals of your herd without questioning and examining them -- like an automaton following the one in front of you -- you abdicate your moral responsibility. Though not ideal, this is still bearable for this is itself a moral choice -- even if a bad one -- and concerns only you.

However, what is morally abhorrent is denying others in your herd a chance of questioning and discussing its goals. In doing so you deny that autonomy for moral choice which makes us human. (Of course, some may point out that it will be an impossible situation because two members of the herd may decide on contradictory goals. But that difficulty can be handled by some agreed upon rule -- votes, for example. In that case everyone is still allowed to make their own choices even if their preferred outcome is not achieved. What is immoral is disallowing equal chance to anyone to discuss and influence the goals of their herd according to their own conscience.)

This is the moral argument for tolerance of questioning and discussion in a herd.

There is also an instrumental argument. The herds that allow the collective intelligence of the member to discuss and choose goals are more successful and resilient. Conversely, the herds whose self-definition is based on taboos -- we are a herd that does not discuss this or that -- will disintegrate sooner than later.

[*It holds true of all herds -- your nation, your religion, your organization, your sports team or whatever herd you feel part of.]

Kafka in MEA

Contrary to the rumors of his death, Kafka is hale and hearty. Met him at the passport office of Ministry of External Affairs, India last couple of days.

Went to get my passport renewed. Since I had got married in the interim, I wanted to get Manvi's name added. The document list on the website suggested that I submit a joint affidavit declaring that I and Manvi are married. Sounded pretty legit. I did the needful and attached the affidavit with the application. The officer at counter B who was responsible for verifying the documents didn't seem convinced that I was married to someone I was stating on a sworn legal document that I was. (Even though the MEA's own site said the document was sufficient.) The officer, in his own infinite wisdom, then decided to ask for the verification of originals -- the wife, in this case. No kidding! His logic: since the affidavit was executed on the same day, he needed to double check. (Implying that had I sworn in the same statement a couple of weeks ago, it would have been more believable. An affidavit is perhaps like concrete that need to be curated for a week or two before it achieves desired strength.) He and subsequently the deputy passport officer asked me to come next day with Manvi.

So I and Manvi reached passport office again early next morning. The only problem? The security guard was adamant that the rules are pretty clear -- in no case can anyone be allowed to accompany the applicant who was not a child or senior citizen. So I tried to make him see the catch-22-ness of my situation. Finally after about 15 mins of hand waving and emphatic arguments, we agreed to wait for some officer who would review my case. In the interim I was left wondering my luck -- had the officers at counter B yesterday shown the similar spirit of sticking to the letters of the rules as this guard was showing today, I and Manvi would have been spared this trouble. The wisdom in a government office is always arbitrarily distributed, I surmised.

Finally the guard talked to someone inside and luckily this person wasn't as stickler for details and advised that we both be allowed in. After about 3 hours of other multiple rounds of verifications, scannings, and clarifications, my file was accepted. Funny part -- the file had exactly the same documents as were submitted the first time. Only consolation -- throughout these hours of difficulty, the wife was present, in original, alongside me, as she promised about a couple of years ago.

You

Came across the following Hindi poem on Twitter via @iawoolford - 

And my attempt at translation -

You

I stumbled upon
As one would on a new word.
To grasp and comprehend you
I accepted my own inferiority;
And with a student-like faith
I turned into a believer.
Doesn't being a believer imply
That only as the understanding dawns
One becomes uncomplicated like a learner?
Isn't word polymorphism the essence of texts?
O my word
O my meaning
O my text
You.

Stoic Ethics

Change what you should and can. 
Accept what you shouldn't or can't change. 
Understand, regardless. 

~ Stoicism, basically.

P.S. Sounds like a good programming maxim.

On Tolerance

I get along well with people who've high tolerance -- for ideas and alcohol.  
Others generally throw up too soon -- in a pub or a discussion.

The Joys of Studying History

Some 300 years ago, a dude born in western U.P. and working at the time in Dilli*, moved to Hyderabad to make a career for himself -- not unlike yours truly. So we paid a visit to his family house, the Chowmahallah palace, this weekend. The Nizams, as his dynasty came to be called, seem to have had done rather well for themselves, though we felt that they could have learned a thing or two from the Rajputs in the art of building grand royal palaces.

[* The first Nizam, Asaf Jah I got fed up with the court intrigues in Dilli that followed the death of Aurangzeb in 1707. He moved to Deccan in 1724 to carve out an independent principality for himself -- though the dynasty he founded, the Asaf Jahiya dynasty or the Nizams, would never be absolute sovereign of the Deccan -- at least in theory. First, the Nizams continued to accept the sovereignty of the Mughals, and then later accepted the paramountcy of the British.]

And today, quite unexpectedly, I came to learn that in historical terms the connection with the family of Nizam, Asaf Jah I goes further than the mere similarity of moving to Hyderabad for the reasons of rozgar or career. Apparently, my home town, Ghaziabad, was founded in 1740 by Ghazi ud-Din Khan Feroze Jung II, the eldest son of the first Nizam whom he got installed as the Wezier (prime minister) in the court of Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah before moving to the Deccan.

Ah, the joys of studying history.

Paternalism and Morality

Bemused at the debate around the interview of Delhi gang rape convict. Worryingly large number of apparently sensible people are expressing the view that broadcast of the interview should be banned to protect the public from such views. This is a paternalistic argument and it is wrong.

The views expressed in the interview may be wrong and disturbing, but so far as they are true in the sense of being held by an actual person, it is in society's larger interest to be aware of existence of such views.

Even more importantly, there's an ethical angle to this whole debate -- assuming that morality involves *autonomous* choices between right and wrong, it is precisely in the presence of opposing views that a person's or a society's choices and affirmations become autonomous and acquire moral worth. Paternalism takes away this autonomy and thus erodes the capacity for moral judgement -- both for the individual and the society. It makes a society or a person morally under-confident.

Dum Laga Ke Haisha - Review

'Dum Laga Ke Haisha' is a good movie -- in a charming sort of way. It has a simple, honest and important theme -- personal insecurity and inferiority complexes affect your relationship not just with yourself but also with everyone else around you. Usually in a negative way. And it explores this theme in an authentic, short, and crisp style. (The movie is just around 100 mins and set in the small town of Haridwar.) And it's this very honesty and authenticity that makes it possible to like this movie even if one does not entirely agree with its conclusions. Though a certain wisdom is apparent in the point that the movie finally makes.

Personally, it's always a delight to watch a well made Hindi movie with an authentic regional dialect. In that sense, it joins the likes of Paan Singh Tomar (Central Indian dialect), Haasil (Eastern UP), and Khosla ka Ghosla (Delhi and NCR). It is delightful in its use of spoken Hindi dialect from the Saharanpur-Haridwar region.

[*Spoiler Alert*]

However, let me go on a bit of a tangent and talk about the theme of the movie a little more.

Consider an alternative ending where the protagonist is not able to make amends with his estranged wife. Unable to get his domestic life going and fueled by an intense sense of insecurity, he devotes an increasingly large amount of time to the RSS shakhas and becomes a Hindutva 'Pracharak'. He works hard and dedicatedly to overcome his inferiority complex and to prove himself. And remains a bachelor for his whole life.

In the context of the movie, that would probably be not such a happy ending. But as the quote goes - "If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." So let's stretch this alternative story a bit further and see if it does in fact have an happy ending after all. And sure enough, if we allow the story a few more decades we get a totally different sort of happy ending for the protagonist -- which we know from another popular story -- he ends up becoming the PM of the country.

Given that the alternative story is not all that far fetched, the point here, I guess is this -- insecurity can lead to troubled relationships but it can also act as a fuel to push people towards greater creativity and greater "will to power". It then stops being an entirely negative and destructive emotion. 

Of course as with pretty much most other things, there are no absolutely right answers here. The best we can do, perhaps then, is just be aware of different possibilities and make autonomous choices to deal with our insecurities.

On Legitimacy

Legitimacy refers to that ingredient which turns mere power into authority.

I take your money, it's stealing or robbing. I take it with authority of a tax collector (appointed by an accepted legal process and acting according to the law), then it is not. I use a legal example, but legitimacy (or authority) need not necessarily be synonymous with legal.

Consider a traditional tribal society with no legal system. Such a society still has elders or leaders who exercise authority and can dole out punishment and rewards simply because it is thought to be legitimate for them to do so. They act in absence of any formal legal system. Weber famously gave his three way classification of authority -- traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. Only last is explicitly tied to a legal system. First two are not.

Finally Beetham's views on the subject are relevant. According to him, legitimate power (and therefore authority) must satisfy 3 conditions -
1. Power must be exercised according to established rules.
2. Rules must be justified in terms of shared belief of the government and governed.
3. Legitimacy must be demonstrated by the expression of consent.

The essential point here is -- for it to be legitimate, the exercise of power must be justified in terms of shared beliefs of the government and the governed. And those views may be codified either as laws of a modern society or customs of a tribal society or even dictates of a charismatic messiah.

Happy MahaShivratri

He is an ascetic and an householder. A Maha-Yogi, He's a "fitness freak" and yet He loves his bhang and his soma. A lover of nature and animals, He meditates in Himalayas, far removed from the concerns of the world and yet He cares enough about it to drink the worldly poison. A destroyer and a creator - He performs tandava and lasya in turn. His legendary phallus is a symbol of male fertility and yet as Ardhanarishvara he's also half feminine.

A patron of all performing arts, isn't He the coolest God ever?

Happy MahaShivratri!

[P.S. Of course celebrate the day with this lovely song -- which I have already translated for you :D ]

Mohe Apne Rang Mein...

So I heard a song in a friends car and it wont leave my head. So I searched it online and found it's sung by Shafqat. No surprises there -- he's an amazing singer. More interestingly, the song is written by Amir Khusro - the 12th century poet disciple of Nizamuddin Auliya. And that makes it second consecutive ear-worm for me that has originated from Khusro and dedicated to Nizamuddin Auliya. [The earlier one that I've been binging on for last few weeks is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SDrjwtfKMk ]

So obviously I got a bit curious about Khusro and these songs. And it turns out that this Kusro dude was, to put it colloquially, f'ing awesome! He invented sitar and tabla and Qawalli and maybe even Ghazal. And he was "originator of the khayal and tarana styles of music". Wow! Basically Khusro was to Hindustani music what Newton was to classical mechanics.

Coming to the song -- "Mehboob-e-illahi" in the song is one of the names of Nizannudin Auliya, of whom Khusro was a disciple. And the phrase means beloved of God. (And it reminds of the similar title of the emperor Ashoka -- "Devānāmpriya" (in Pali or was it Prakrit?) also meaning beloved of gods). Anyway, I digress. Coming back to the song -- here's my attempt at translating the simple yet beautiful lyrics -

मोहे अपने ही रंग में रंगले
मोहे अपने ही रंग में रंगले
तू तो साहिब मेरा मेहबूब-ए-इलाही
मोहे अपने ही रंग में रंगले

[Dye me in your own color
You're my master, O beloved of God
Dye me in your own color.]

हमरी चुनरिया, पिया की पगरिया
वो तो दोनो बसंती रंगले
तू तो साहिब मेरा मेहबूब-ए-इलाही
मोहे अपने ही रंग में रंगले

[My stole and beloved's turban
Color them both saffron.
You're my master, O beloved of God
Dye me in your own color.]

जो कुछ मांगे रंग कि रंगाई
मोरा जौबन गिरवी रख ले
तू तो साहिब मेरा मेहबूब-ए-इलाही
मोहे अपने ही रंग में रंगले

[If some fee you ask for dyeing
Keep my youth as security.
You're my master, O beloved of God
Dye me in your own color.]

आन पड़ी दरबार तेहारे
मोरी लाज़ सरम सब रख ले
तू तो साहिब मेरा मेहबूब-ए-इलाही
मोहे अपने ही रंग में रंगले

[I come to your court
Keep (uphold) my honor and dignity.
You're my master, O beloved of God
Dye me in your own color.]

No Space for Public Reason?

It is becoming quite clear that the TV studio opinions and the social media outrages are increasingly determining governments' agenda. The exercise of public reason has taken a back seat -- at least in the cases in which media (conventional or social) decide to get involved. The result is that the governments just want to be seen as doing something, anything, even before they have thought through the issue. It's the impression that only seems to matter.

Consider the two recent cases -

First was the case of Rohtak girls who decided to stand up to their alleged harassers in a public bus. Media widely reported, even celebrated, the event. The Haryana government of ML Khattar (who had in the recent elections remarked that the girls should dress appropriately else it leads to trouble) immediately announced bravery awards for the girls. But then just the next day TV channels got hold of a new video showing the girls in yet another similar situation. Implicit questions were raised whether it were the girls who were simply of the aggressive kind. (As if a woman who has once stood up for herself should not take a similar stand ever again). That media wanted its talking points was not surprising but what was surprising was the Haryana government's decision to withhold its award to the girls. It's ridiculous that a government's actions be decided based on what's the mood on the dinner time TV debates. And yet that's what happened on two consecutive days -- first the rush to announce the awards, then to cancel them. They might have as well conducted a twitter poll or something.

Second is the Uber case. Due to the media attention, the central government felt obliged to be seen as doing something even before it had taken a considered view on the matter. (As is clear from the differing views of the Home Minister and the Transport Minister, the council itself is not clear what the strategy to deal with the situation should be). And it did just the easiest of things -- ban the cab service. In this particular case, the effect of media can be seen in still starker relief if one considers that the accused was a serial offender whose similar crimes were already brought to police notice earlier. But those crimes were committed in a small town in UP away from the gaze of media. (In fact there were reports that the neighbors from the village where the accused hailed distributed sweets celebrating the news that he was finally going to be punished now that he had committed a crime in the capital and media was involved.)

So clearly it's the media, and not some underlying public purpose, that is getting the governments to act. Or at least be seen as doing something, however meaningless those actions may be. Action is demanded and activity is delivered. As for the progress, that's a different thing.

Now, I have earlier held the view that in a democracy a government should respond to whatever its citizens demand even if those demands are not the most rational ones. (Of course, while remaining within the broader limits of our constitution). But now I am not all that sure about this.

The main question here, I think,  is the nature of representation that our politicians should owe us. Should they just be our delegates who must simply carry out whatever wishes we might have? Or should they be allowed to act as trustees who, in the words of Edmund Burke, "owe us not merely their industry but also their judgement"? Of course, given the distrust of the politician class the trustee model would sound dangerous to most. But then the delegate model, in combination with an hyperactive media, also has its own ridiculousness.

So I am not sure what the right balance is. But this much is certain -- that we need more places where calm public reason can be exercised. Parliament was one such place, but it's in decline now due to various reasons. Media is functioning within a competitive market. And as a rational actor has its focus on TRPs which doesn't really care much about providing that location for public reasoning. Where else?

Kama and Culture

"Indians are among the most prolific consumers of internet pornography" finds the data collected from a porn site over a year.

Given our formal cultural acceptance of Kāma as a legitimate goal of  Hindu life, this would be unremarkable. The cultural acceptance, of course, goes at least as far back as Rishi Vatsyana (of the Kamasutra fame) in the 2nd Century BC and has since been regularly reiterated in the literature, songs, paintings and most vividly in sculpture.

A later day Victorian ethics brought to our shores on the ships of colonists, however, continues to distort our views on the subject. [I am not sure what influence the Mughals had.] Now that a new cultural nationalist government is in power, one would assume them to be eager to rectify this distortion. But such are the paradoxes of politics that they plan to do the exact opposite.

On a slightly different and a more practical note -- being a civilized grown-up entails taking responsibility of and control over one's own libido. And to the extent porn sites provide a rather safe outlet to a person's natural biological needs, they serve a utilitarian purpose. It is fatuous of those who argue that this leads to degradation of morals. It does not -- unless you define watching porn itself as immoral, which I strongly deny on multiple grounds. [And I speak for many (mostly from college) when I say that watching porn does not necessarily make one an immoral person. This is by now amply borne out by our personal experiences.]

P.S. In case you find the subject or this post offensive (though I do not see why one should), please consider closing the browser. Comments are welcome.

Democracy, Dogma and Market

A good insightful and articulate piece by Nitin Pai on the dangers of democracy to public rationality got me thinking. Following are some thoughts -

In his article, Nitin Pai highlights the limitations of democracy in promoting a certain set of values which are of self evident worth (at least to anyone subscribing to a basic form of liberalism). He argues that values like Rationality and individual liberty are important values that can be harmed by the working of a majoritarian democracy. Thus, they need an a-priori protection (i.e. not based merely on majority opinion). To address this, he says -- in the liberal tradition that goes at least as far back as John Locke -- that we should do two things -

First, we should constrain the majoritarian workings of a democracy with a basic republican constitution which will protect such important and self evident values (and hence not to be decided by the show of hands) as individual liberty and freedom of speech. The protection of these values should be as absolute as possible, not only because they are valuable in themselves but also for the instrumental reason that they promote other values like public reason or individual self-development.

Second thing to do is to moderate a purely majoritarian system with an institutional structure that can provide the locations for exercise of reason isolated from temporal pressures of popular will. One such important institution is judiciary and we must therefore ensure that the judiciary is immune to popular pressures and influences to the maximum extent possible.

Nitin also cites Bryan Caplan as arguing that -- there are systematic biases through which a democracy places irrational pressures on a goverment. Therefore a goverment should allow greater role for markets to determine the economic outcomes.

I do not find this last argument as entirely convincing (though there's perhaps more to it as I haven't read the book mentioned in Nitin's article). The contradiction that I see in the argument in its present form is this -- if we begin from the position that the self centered individuals in the market place of ideas (i.e electoral democracy) do not lead to rational outcomes/policies, then we can not, at the same time, also claim that self centered individuals in the market place of commodities (i.e. markets) lead to rational outcomes. There has to be more explanation for why greater liberty fails to secure rational outcomes in a democratic setup but not in a market setup. (And this explanation should not be mere definitional -- i.e. it should not begin with definition of rational as what markets do).

In addition, I also see markets as having the systematic biases of their own that can also lead to amplification of dogma over reason. Let's take the example of TV news market. In India it's a relatively competitive field with no channel enjoying a monopoly. Accordingly they all compete for the same viewership. This leads news channels to decide their news or commentary agenda not based on any higher principle of truth, rationality or moderation but rather on what the popular view at the moment is. This is as the market imperative would require 'rational' actors to do -- paradoxically leading to similar erosion of public rationality as was argued above for a democratic arrangement. And since this is true for all channels, it is reasonable to argue that in this case even market as a system is not immune to having their own inbuilt systematic biases.

I think in the end it all boils down to this question -- how do you make maximum liberty of an individual compatible with other values -- rationality, moderation, equality etc. 

Highway

There is this very peculiar feeling that I sometimes get when I am in a natural setting -- in a jungle, or by the river, or even in some field -- and it's a bit difficult to express but the main component of that feeling is a sense of contingency - a sense that there's nothing necessary in the scene around me. That those trees or bushes in the jungle or the stones on the mountains could just as well have been aligned differently or could have been in different numbers or of different sizes and it wouldn't have changed anything substantial. That there's no apparent pattern, structure or necessity to the whole thing. And I think that's probably part of the reason why witnessing nature is generally a relaxing experience -- if there is no pattern or meaning in it, there's that much less cognitive load. You just observe the scene and that is pretty much all there's to it. (Of course, there's almost certainly much more going on besides this lack of pattern that make natural settings enjoyable as they are).

So, what brought forth this train of thoughts? It was "Highway", the movie. One thing in the movie that really hit me was its sense of contingent. Highways are probably the only man-made places that with their continuous change of scenery and landscape suggest a similar absence of any necessity. And I think the film was remarkably well shot to convey that sense -- an abandoned godown in the middle of nowhere or a mound by the roadside you go behind to take the leak or a nondescript roadside dhaba -- there's absolutely nothing that is necessary about them. And I thought the movie captured that aspect quite brilliantly.

And I was already struck by this thought when the main characters in the movie revealed their background story to suggest that they both -- one rich and elite and the other poor and arguably exploited -- were running away from the necessities and structures of the society that hadn't quite worked out for them in their own different ways. So I thought that was quite a clever (and subtle) way to put the whole thing -- that these people were running away from the necessary and structured to the contingent and chaotic. Though it doesn't quite work out for them in the end and that makes the whole thing tragic, but, yeah, one can see the lure of it all.

Hindutva and Self-Pity

"By attacking Doniger's work for discussing sensuality in Hindu life, her opponents display a Victorian hangover with a Taliban temperament." - http://t.co/CFBtkJokpW

"When you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you" said Nietzsche a while back. He might as well be talking about these Hindutva extremists. The most articulate expression of the Hindutva's visceral hatred towards Islam and Christanity is, paradoxically, their imitation of the worst features of these very traditions -- to "display the Victorian hangover with a Taliban temperament."

At the very core of the Hindutva project is the profound sense of self-pity and a sense of shame at the perceived lack of coherence of Hinduism. Ashamed of the inherent ambiguities of Hinduism, they want to mimic the very religions and cultures that their politics makes it expedient to hate. Islam has "The book", we must also have one - look we have Gita! One central god figure? Here -- we have Ram. See, second to no one!

Of course, a self pitying person is doubly ashamed. He is ashamed the second time as the recipient of his own pity. Self pity is recursive. And one way to come out of this uncomfortable recursion that Hindutvawadis have found is to cloak the underlying shame in the language of pride and honor.

Useful Idiots

With elections in sight
and looking to increase
their political might,
the parties,
on the left and on the right,
are attracting foot soldiers,
- not necessarily very bright,
but who,
even on the slightest provocation,
are ever ready to fight -
on TV shows, radio talks or on internets,
and think of themselves
as righteous warriors on chariots
but in reality
are perhaps mere useful idiots.



P.S. - Useful idiots in prose.

Kamal and Rajkumar

So there were these two friends -- Kamal and Rajkumar. They were very close but they had different political affiliations. They respected each other very much so one would never attack other's political party or leaders directly as they knew it could lead to avoidable bitterness between them. However, they were both smart and well meaning chaps. So they devised a method to put their points across to each other in such a way that it wouldn't affect their friendship -- they would tell jokes and stories to each other.

I thought that was a very clever thing to do. And sometimes the stories they told were themselves clever too. Recently, I overheard one such conversation between them. Following is a faithful reproduction of it. 

Kamal: So there was this boy in our school who wasn't very bright. He had trouble understanding and remembering things. Once for an essay recitation exam, he memorized few essays. But on the day of the exam he forgot everything except the essay on Cow. So, when the teacher asked him to recite an essay on "Our Village", he started "Our village has many cows. The cows have four legs and a tail. They're white in color. They give milk..."

"No, no, that's not what I asked", the teacher stopped him. "Lets try again - recite an essay on Horse".

He again started - "Horse is an animal like cow. Cows have four legs and a tail. They're white ..."

The teacher again had to stop him. But, whatever the student was asked, he would always somehow relate it to the only thing he knew and not pay any attention to the topic. It would have been a really funny thing, if it weren't also so pathetic. Still, everyone had good laugh at his expense.

Rajkumar: Ahh, the school stories! I am also reminded of one from my school. So there was this student taking the Hindi grammar test. He was considered very bright and he had prepared really well for the exams. He was so confident that some students even thought that he already knew what questions the teacher would ask. But that probably was just a rumor.

Anyway, his test started well. Teacher asked him to make a sentence using the word Gau (गौ). He quickly answered - "Gau hamari maata hai". Teacher then asked him to make a sentence on Dhara (धरा). He again fluently answered - "Hindustan ki dhara ke nivasi Hindu hain".

The teacher them asked him to do a Sandhi (संधि) or joining of these two words and speak a sentence on it. But he just stared at the teacher's face for a moment and simply ran away from the class.

It's not as funny a story as yours but I haven't still figured out why he couldn't use all his apparent brilliance to answer "Godhara" (Gau+Dhara) and make just a simple sentence on it.

and a tail.

Shivji's Matrimonial Disclaimer

Haryanvi ragini from Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye! movie in which Shivji summons all his humility to dissuade Parvarti from marrying him. One of my favorite. 

My attempt at translation for those not too familiar with Haryanvi: 

तू राज्जा की राजदुलारी, मैं सिर्फ लंगोटे आला सूँ |
भांग रगड़ कै पिया करूं, मैं कुंडी सोट्टे आला सूँ |

[While you're a beloved princess, I am a mere loincloth clad,
I grind and drink bhaang; mortar & pestle are all I've got.]

तू राज्जा की छोरी सै, म्हारै इक भी दासी दास नही|
शाल दुशाले औढ़न आली, म्हारै कम्ब्बल तक भी पास नही|

[While you're a king's daughter, I have not a single servant;
O! wearer of expensive shawls, I don't even have a blanket.]

तू बागा की कोयल सै, अड़े बरफ पड़ै हरी घास नही |
किस तरयहा दिल लागै तेरा, शतरंज, चौपड़, ताश नही |

[While you're a beautiful bird of garden, here it's all snow and no grass;
How will you entertain yourself - there're no cards, chaupar or chess.]

किसी साहूकार तै भ्या करवा ले, साहूकार तै भ्या करवा ले,
मैं खालिस टोट्टे आला सूँ,
भांग रगड़ के पिया करूं, मैं कुंडी सोट्टे आला सूँ |

[Get married to a wealthy merchant,
Destitution is all I've got,
I grind and drink bhaang; mortar & pestle are all I've got.]

मैं धूने में तपया करूं, तू आग देख कै डर जागी|
राख घोल के पीया करूं, मेरा भाग देख कै डर जागी|

सौ सौ साँप पड़ै रै गल मै, नाग देख कै डर जागी|
ताण्डव नाच करे बन मै, रंग राग देख कै डर जागी|

[I burn in meditation, the fire will frighten you;
I survive on ash and water, my fate will shock you;

Hundreds of serpents around my neck, the snakes will frighten you;
I perform Tandav in jungle, the excitement will startle you.]

तनै ज़ुल्फ़ों वाला छोरा चाहिये, ज़ुल्फ़ों वाला छोरा चाहिये
मैं लम्बे चोटे आला सूँ|
भांग रगड़ के पिया करूं, मैं कुंडी सोट्टे आला सूँ |

[You need one with flowing hairs, 
I have mere dreadlocks;
I grind and drink bhaang; mortar & pestle are all I've got.]

Propensity towards Conspiracy Theories

Unable to contemplate beyond binaries, the limited mind, when confronted with the greater possibilities of the world, found a useful and convenient tool in the conspiracy theory. If something is not with us, the limited mind thought, then it must surely be a conspiracy against us.

Fun exercise: Observe a person, an organization or a political group that is predisposed towards conspiracy theories. More than an even chance that they also have an essentially limited and rigid world view.