Sycophancy as Badge of Honor

Mani Shankar Aiyar and Kapil Sibal would be what I would call quintessential congressmen. Their statements reacting to Sonia Gandhi's refusal to accept the Prime Minister post just show how, in the Congress party, sycophancy is still a badge of honor that partymen (even senior 'leaders') try to flash everytime they want to appear on News.

Says Aiyar, "The inner voice of people says you should become the PM. Please don’t leave us. Please continue to lead us. None in this hall other than you deserve to occupy the prime ministership."

Says Kapil Sibal, "Our faith is only with you. It is not an issue of becoming the Prime Minister. Prime Ministers come and go. But you have thought of people. And there is nobody in this hall entitled to be the Prime Minister."

I dont know who among the above two said it first. As they seem to be running out of creative ideas even here!

To say that no one deserves to be Prime Minister in the Congress party not only demands a blind sense of subservience but also a total lack of respect for other leaders in the party. It potrays the Congress party like a bunch of weaklings whose only strength is an 'Italian-born' leader.

More Mileage for Less

Sonia Gandhi's decision not to become Prime Minister has resulted in different kinds of reaction from the two sides of the house.

While the Congress and its allies are putting up a "we-cant-believe-it-dont-do-this-to-us-or-we-will-start-crying" kids show, the NDA has discovered that Sonia Gandhi is fickle-minded. (whoa!)

For me, if this decision of her's comes to stay, it was made just on the basis of one question - Mileage!

Congress's melodrama, though stupid to watch, will obviously increase Sonia's image among the masses and that is something that the party would do well with. And the decision itself, will go well with the different factions of the party. One has to admit that, even though everyone in the party agreed to her PMship, there would have been little differences here and there. Now this decision, could very well help a lot in uniting the party into one under her leadership. So far, Sonia Gandhi's leadership had a credibility question to it. This is a good step towards answering that.

If the plan was to achieve as much mileage as possible for the advantage that the election results gave them, it is working like a charm.

And if the BJP thought that it could keep fueling the foreign issue / incapability issue on her Prime Ministership and destabilize the future government, it has just received a serious jolt to that plan. And a jolt, when they least expected it. They had already started the hate propaganda spearheaded by second-rung leaders (and other RSS folks) and they have nowhere to go now. They have got themselves into a situation from where there is no statesmanly exit. It is like the situation of the child shouting unfair that his elder has got more candies than him and the elder, after letting him do all his catcalls, finally just handing him the candy.

So now that they have got the candy they cried for, they are blaming Congress and Sonia for being fickle-minded. Now this is not only stupid to watch/hear, but is outright stupid from whatever angle you look at. All this will do is anger the melodramatic Sonia-supporting crowd and distance those that are just watching what is going on. George Fernandes should realize that he had done the act of spoiling-the-party-by-mouthing-off exercise so many times now that it is hightime to try being different (and quiet)!

He argues that if Sonia had announced this earlier, we wouldn't have gone this far! Well, Mr. Fernandes, if you dont understand even now, that was the whole idea. To bring you this far. To let you cry out loud and make the nasty comments that you would. To let you make your threats of boycott and resignations. To let you try and dig up nationalism. And then, after you do all the buffoonery, give you the parting kick by handing over the candy.

That is a very simple and sound political strategy.

It would be a good idea for the party (BJP/NDA) highcommand to issue a whip-like statement asking party leaders not to react to this decision of Sonia with statements like this and make a fool of themselves and the party. It only shows the party (and NDA) in really bad light (in which they already are).

Congress leaders (Sonia in particular) will only smile for all such reactions. If BJP continues to react the way it is doing, things are going well according to their plan - an increased mileage for the little-advantage that poll results gave them.

And the question that I said that needed to be answered in my last post, has been answered by Sonia herself. And I admit, I am surprised - in not only that it came, but by its perfect timing.

Foreign Born as Prime Minister

This news item in The Hindu lists the views aired by important leaders in the recent past about the Foreign Origin issue of Sonia Gandhi.

Each of these leaders (who are all in the Congress alliance) have said something to the effect that the issue is ridiculous and unimportant.

The more important question, however, is "What eligibility criteria does Sonia Gandhi satisfy other than the fact that she is from a particular family to be considered for Prime Minister ship?". In other words, is making her the Prime Minister a smart idea?

I think this is the question all of the leaders that are going to be in power need to consider. Thinking that her prime ministership is something that was forced by the people on them through the mandate is not going to help answer the above question.

But looking at the ranks of leaders that are assembled in that side of the house, it is clear that no one will do something like that. Even knowing that none of the political leaders will think along these lines, it is important to remember that this is the primary question that anyone supporting her candidature needs to answer.

And this question is independent of what the people-mandate is.

Sorry...

... for any inconvenience if you dont like this blog design..

I only selected this one, I did not design it... Will try to improve in the near future...

Fall of a Statue = End of a War

In an article titled, "General Dyer in Iraq" (?), Swami Aiyar predicts doom for American Troops in Iraq. He claims that even though historically, imperialist adventures such as this one have concluded in "happy endings", this one might not. He gives the following reasons for the same -

1. "Nationalism is a much stronger force today" and thus the cost for the would-be occupier will be much more than it was before (he gives the 1857 mutiny as example, where the lack of nationalism (uniting as one) between the princely states made things relatively easy for the British).

2. America in Iraq, is not seen as a liberator of Iraq, but as Israel's ally and thus anti-Israelian feelings in Iraq will fuel anti-American hatred even among educated civilians in Iraq.

Firstly, let us get one thing straight. Both the reasons above were "pre-existing" conditions. That is, if you sat down to reason, these should have been on your first why-not-to-go-for-war checklists. The reasons above are in no way a result of what happened in the last one year in Iraq. They were there... always!

The same writer has also predicted that US will only create more terrorists for the future than less through this supposed War on Terror. That a lot of anti-war demonstrators on the street said the same thing last year is inconsequential, though. What sense of economics do the street demonstrators have? Do they even realize that this War will free up so much of Oil for the world market?

Now to the point of why these writers (like Swami Aiyar) did not predict the doom that they predict now before the War. Other than lack of insight and adopting a convenience strategy, I can see no other reason!

In fact, my complaint is not so much about neutral economists like Swami Aiyar playing the safe game of predicting after the event is over. But rather about the silence of those who proclaimed themselves as supporters of War.

According to them, the War got over when Saddam's statue was brought down. After celebrating that event and calling it the end of the War, some shed tears (of happiness) for American heroism. Some even went to the extent of asking the anti-War proponents whether they expected something else to happen? They wondered, what anti-war writers/speakers were really fussing about and why some of them were calling this War an exercise of stupidity.

"Did you expect something else to happen?", they asked.

The answer from the other end of the house is slowly becoming clear. May be they expected a prolonged counter attack in an unconventional fashion. May be they associated end-of-war to be something that will mean less violence and bloodshed than during War and not something like the fall of a statue.

April 2004 is being claimed as the bloodiest month for American troops in Iraq since the War started (and ended!). The people who opposed this War are probably amazed at how one year after the War ended, the troops are facing their toughest time.

With the news of Iraqi prisoners abused in Abu Ghraib gaining momentum, maybe the opposers of War feel sad and enraged at how things could have been handled in a much better way.

The real sad part though is the irony in all this. As the opposers wait for the response from those who claimed the War would make the World a better place to live, and ask them what they have to say now, those that supported the War have shut themselves off from all this news since the War has ended (for them!) and are busy searching for other issues to talk about and rally for!

Pedagogy...

Teachers of the world,
Here is a question for you.

Mowgli is in 5th grade (or standard or class or whatever). You are his Hindi teacher. Remember the section of an exam where a word is given and the student is asked to use that word in a sentence? During one of the exams, you ask Mowgli a "Use in Sentence" question. The word is "Jhoot".

Mowgli uses the word confidently in a sentence. His sentence is -

Humhe jhoot bolna chaahiye!

Being his teacher, will you give credit to this answer or not? Whatever you decide, explain the reasoning behind your decision.

:-)

Citizenship Act and the Reciprocity Proviso

Subramaniam Swamy has supposedly dug out a legal provision under which Sonia Gandhi cannot become the Prime Minister of India.

The provision he is referring to is under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Unfortunately, the Internet does not seem to be a good resource while excavating such legal/constitutional information concerning India.

So far this is the only place where I could find text related to what Swamy is referring to, and I quote -

Citizenship by registration
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the prescribed authority may, on application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or by virtue of any of the other provisions of this Act and belongs to any of the following categories,-

(a) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India and have been resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration;

(b) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India;

(c) persons who are, or have been, married to citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration.

(d) minor children of persons who are citizens of India; and

(e) persons of full age and capacity who are citizens of a country specified in Schedule I:

PROVIDED that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration.

Legal provisions are not supposed to be understood easily and this I think is a law in itself. As is the case in the above law. The last sentence beginning "provided" is so convoluted that it took 3 or 4 readings to even guess what it could possibly mean.

And it does look like the law can be interpreted in a way Swamy is talking about. But I am making a few assumptions here.

1. That this website is authentic
2. That this is the only law that talks about this - and that there is no other law that gives a more clear interpretation that overrules this one.
3. That my interpretation is logically alright

Can someone throw more light vis-a-vis my assumptions?

Pi

Question - Give me a method of constructing a line segment of length Pi.

:-)

Defying Logic

For time immemorial, I have believed in the study of Fundamentals. Whenever the study or analysis of any topic of subject is considered, I have always believed that going to the fundamentals will always yield fruits.

After being a student of Mathematics for sometime, I found myself gradually drifting towards areas which can be roughly classified as Mathematical Logic and Scientific Philosophy. These areas of studies, fundamental as they are, held an immediate appeal for me. For sometime, I even thought these were the only areas that would interest me.

I should admit that inspite of my interest, my knowledge in these areas still is extremely limited. But the fascination remained with me for quite some time.

Of late, I have started to drift from that position. I am giving an apology here for my change of stance. There are a few reasons.

Even though, I still believe these fundamental studies are important, I think they are more for the past-masters of Mathematics. These fundamental studies require not just intellectual power, but also a vast experience in Mathematics. Of course, intellectual power also is important for deep fundamental study but they require some level of overall knowledge of what the upper-layer(which is mathematics) looks like. To gain that, considerable amount of time and effort should be spent on atleast a few major areas of Math which can only be done if you are a full-time Mathematician for some period in your life.

Mathematics - whatever form it might take - is always a study of structure and pattern. Infact the concept of "abstraction", which forms the core of higher mathematics, is all about pattern-searching and as a result Generalizing. This is where I find myself in conflict when trying to proceed with Mathematical Logic. Logic forces me to ask questions on my basic assumptions. It tries to break all pattern by trying to reach to the bare fundamentals. So much so that we start doubting our very existence many times.

Anything said in the last paragraph about logic applies for Scientific Philosophy - the art of investigating truth by asking never-ending questions.

After spending some time over such fundamental studies, I have come to the conclusion that - even though these studies are important and have helped historic breakthroughs in the human thought process, they are not suitable for students of mathematics. Students of Mathematics should rather delve into Real Mathematics - which is the study of pattern and structure and the creation of new patterns and structures.

There is a vast ocean of Mathematical knowledge which can be so much fun to experience. Once we have experienced a significant portion of it, we may choose to drift into more fundamental studies of logic and philosophy. However, to start here and go beyond, is like trying to learn the working of a BMW engine rather than taking off on an open highway to explore newer worlds!

Logic as a matter-o-taste

It has been sometime since I have thought about these things. Here is a little argument about null sets that I want to present. Please find flaws.

If A and B are two sets such that 'x' belongs to A implies 'x' belongs to B, then A is a subset of B. The null set is a set that does not contain any element. Let us look at the following statement which is generally held to be true in Set Theory.

Statement S --> The null set is a subset of every set.

The argument used (or is hidden) to support this is as follows. In the first part of the definition of a subset, ("x belongs to A") since finding an x belonging to A, when A is the null set, is impossible - we say that every x belonging to the null set belongs to any other set.

In other words, we are saying that if at all there is an x belonging to the null set, it would belong to any other set. But since there is no such x, we can safely say that the null set is a subset of every other set (including itself).

On the contrary, equally logically, we can argue that the statement S is not a verifiable statement because the definition of subset needs an element x.

Thus, I claim that the accepting statement S as true is just a logical choice. It is not a 'primitive' concept which would be evidently true.

In more mathematical terms, if we make the choice of accepting that S is not verifiable, then the partial order relation "is a subset of" cannot be defined over any collection of sets that has the null set as one of its members.