You've seen these street dogs?

They mark a territory of the road as their own. Then they think that they own it. For some reason they are quite peaceful about the whole thing during the day.

But something happens to them at night. They all get together and get quite aggressive.

Along comes a car. For whom the road was made for, in the first place. 

The dogs all start barking and attacking the car. 

But why should the car care? A few barking dogs cannot even make a dent. In fact, if the car stops to take notice, the dogs will probably scatter.

The car moves forward. Whizzes past.

Imagine the road is democracy. The car is the public, for whom democracy was created, and by whom it is used.

The dogs are various watchdogs of democracy, who by now, believe that they own the whole thing.

When they see the public using democracy, they bark. Saying that the road, which is democracy, is being trampled. They bark, saying, this is our territory, how dare you encroach. They bark, saying, we know how to maintain this road. Our noses are closest to it. You have no place in it. 

At least, this is what I've seen on Twitter and various blogs during this Anna Hazare fast. Pompous statements on how unconstitutional it is. Generalization to a ridiculous level, and then ridicule of these self-created generalizations. Reminders that the public have no role in democracy. Except to vote. And of course, pay for the road. Even attempts to show why the car is badly designed and looks ugly. Basically lots and lots of barks. 

Anyway, who cares. People got involved. People got what they want. People won.

The car continues to move ahead on the road. A bit faster now. 

The dogs are still barking.

ODIs would be Pepsi. Used to be irreverent & cheeky. But has lost its edge in recent times. From 'Choice of the new generation' to a more inclusive 'Youngistan'.

IPL is Thums Up. Intense, strong, Indian & over-the-top. 'Taste the thunder'.

As for me, I'm okay with all three. As long as there is some rum involved.

In “Atlas Shrugged”, there is a scene where Hank Rearden is hauled up in front of a kangaroo court on charges of  “illegal” collusion with a fellow industrialist.  Rearden refuses to plead guilty or not-guilty and insists that he doesn’t recognize the right of the court to try him. He says that whatever judgment they make will have to be enforced by the gun and he will not pretend to sanction the process by going through the procedures.

Our Indian democracy has now decided that it too wants such a sanction. A beginning has been made with Gujarat passing a law that makes voting compulsory for local-body elections. I say this is a beginning, because I see it as only as a matter of time before all politicians adopt this idea and make voting mandatory in all elections.

As a country, we seem to be confused between rights and duties. We have a right to education (which in itself is, as a positive right, is not possible unless someone else’s right to property is violated). This has evolved to compulsory education. Why, even our right to life goes hand in hand with compulsory life. I just hope that the right to freedom of speech doesn’t lead to a law that we have to compulsorily keep speaking 24/7. But let’s leave aside this confusion of what makes a right and what makes a duty.

Let’s instead talk about the relationship between the individual and the state.

Now I have a big problem with our system of democracy. I have a problem with our constitution. I have a problem that our government has the power to make laws in too many areas.  I have a problem with reservation in our “democratic institutions”. I have a problem with the sham that power is voted upwards (through constituencies) and exercised downward (through strong centrali zation).

And most importantly, I have a problem that only people or parties that swear to “protect socialism” are even allowed to stand in elections. This means that the constitution has mandated through a Catch-22 that the socialism clause can never be amended.

Elections for me are therefore just a sham. In principle, if I divide the political spectrum into statists & free-market advocates, I am only offered the choice to vote for one side. At one level, it is no different from a dictator conducting an “election” with himself as the only candidate. The right course for me, in this case, is not to vote at all.

This is different from saying that I do not vote for any candidate. Voting none-of-the-above or its equivalent could be interpreted to mean that I don’t like any of the candidates. Whereas I want to indicate that I don’t subscribe to the system itself.

As a person who happened to have been born in this landmass, I know I have no choice but to obey its laws. So I do so. Not because I accept the authority of those who make the laws but because I am protecting my self from state-sponsored harm (in the forms of fines, imprisonment, whatever). I follow the laws the same way I would follow the instructions of anyone who holds a gun to my head.

But the government now wants me to act out a charade that I accept their authority and have an active role to play in its actions. Because, the moment I vote, I have endorsed the system. Nobody will then remember that I was forced to vote.

It’s like a game. The moment you agree to play a game, you have tacitly agreed to the rules of the game as well as the definition of the winner. As long as you were beaten in the game, as per the rules of the game, you have no right to complain.

So by making voting compulsory, our politicians have ensured that everyone has a stake in our elections. And everyone has a moral obligation to accept the authority of the winner.  I don’t. But I guess I shall vote. As long as the gun is still pointed towards my head.

(Incidentally, Hank Rearden got away with a rap on his knuckles)

One way of trying to answer that is by looking at what’s common to most religions.

1. God? Yes, he (or she, or it) is usually present. In some form or the other. From an invisible energy field to visible objects like the sun, to animals, to humans, to super-humans with extra heads and hands.

2. A priestly class. Who somehow possess inside information on the aforementioned god. And who communicate god’s wishes. And one can only becomes a member of this priestly class when the existing priests allow you in.

3. Fear. If one doesn’t adhere to the practices imposed by the priests, you will go to some hell. No one knows where this hell is, but it’s a bad place to be in. Hell could also take another form, like being reincarnated as a lizard.

4. Sacrifice. If people did exactly what they anyway do, then there’s no point having the religion, right? So, one has to behave in a certain way to adhere to the religion. And this way has to have unnatural elements (things you wouldn’t do otherwise). Usually it’s some sort of sacrifice. No pork, no beef, no alcohol, no smokes, no prawns, no music, no dance, no work, whatever.

5. Faith. Now there is no real proof that god & hell exist. (Priests however do exist and can be identified by their costumes). But one is supposed to believe all this on faith. Reason & religion usually do not go together. But faith is not defined as an absence of reason. It is glorified as something vaguely “beyond” reason.

6. Guilt. Once a person starts believing that he/she has faith in god, and will therefore listen to the priests, guilt is inevitable. Because the only way to display this faith is by doing things that you otherwise do not do (or by not doing things that you want to do). So sooner or later, you end up doing something wrong. And because your faith tells you that it is wrong, guilt happens.

7. Signs. People’s credulity can only go so far. So once in a while, the priests have to point out evidence that the religion is right and god does exist. This is usually done with a strong confirmatory bias. So a cute butterfly somehow proves that god exists. And a swarm of locusts proves that god is angry.

8. Outsiders. Every religion tries to divide the world into believers and non-believers. Anybody who questions the religion (or even just ignores it) is branded a heretic. Usually, the fact that these people are anyway going to hell is not considered enough punishment, so they are ostracized or even killed immediately. Once something is accepted as a religion, the burden of proof shifts to those questioning it. The priests don't have to prove the existence of god. The deniers have to prove god's non-existence. Which of course, is pretty impossible.

9. Money. And of course, the religion has to be kept going. So while money is usually seen as the root of all evil, religions somehow can’t seem to get enough of it.

Okay, now let’s look at all this climate change stuff.

The god is nature. Instead of being part of it, we are somehow seen as an external infuence on it.

The priestly class is a bunch of scientists who cannot tell us what the the weather will be next week, but who have sophisticated models that project climate patterns for centuries.

These models make us fear a hell that is at least 100 years away (basically none of us are going to be alive to see if it happens or not). So we have to take this on faith.

The priests demand that we sacrifice various things and modify our lifestyles to leave a smaller carbon footprint.

Because just about anything we do, including breathing, increases our carbon footprint, those who have the faith can’t help feeling some guilt.

As 100 years is a long way away, the priests need to show some signs of global warming. (Incidentally, global cooling was the big fear in the 1970s).  This is a bit difficult in our seasonal, cyclical world, so they hit upon the concept of “climate change”. They said that average temperature would go up but so would the variations. So, effectively, everything became evidence. Hot summers – climate change. Cold summers – climate change. Hurricanes – climate change. Unless the earth’s temperature is absolutely constant, year after year, it is taken as evidence of climate change. So we have our signs.

Anybody who questions anthropogenic climate change is seen as a heretic and is abused. Like the British PM, who recently compared the skeptics heretics to “flat-world believers”. (Conveniently forgetting that the consensus used to be “flat world”. The round-earth folks were the skeptics those days.) Outsiders are classified as irresponsible retards.

And of course there is money involved. Trillions of it. Which perhaps, is the point of it all.

So no problem.  Go ahead. Follow the religion. Follow any religion you want. But do stop referring to climate change as "science". And please don’t make laws based on your religion that affect me. Aren’t we supposed to be a secular society?

PS : Whatever I said, Michael Crichton said better - http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

PPS : @Palsule pointed me from his blog to a speech, again by Michael Crichton, titled Environmentalism as Religion. Do check it out.

Of course I wish it was done some other time, in some other way, for some other reason. A referendum perhaps. Certainly not to appease a violent mob or a fasting leader. But for a moment, let's put the method aside and look at the impact.

I do understand that this means another Raj Bhavan, another Assembly House, a few more MLAs and a painful revision of civics textbooks.

But a smaller state means that people come a wee bit closer to the government. It means a better chance of improved administration. If we look at our country as a market-place where each state competes for human resources and investment, the market has just become a little bit more competitive.

In fact, we should perhaps have many more small states and a hundred self-governing independent cities. People can choose where they want to live, so each state or city will try its best to be the residence of choice.

And all these states and cities can form a loose federation called India with the central government defining the constitution, looking after defence and running the supreme court (to serve as the court of final appeal and to resolve disputes between states). And (reluctantly) issuing currency.

So if one state wants to give a fertilizer subsidy or free televisions, let them go ahead but let them find their own money by taxing their people (the ones who are left). If a city wants to shut-down shops at 10.00 pm let them do so. The night-birds will just fly away to another city which is more free. This way we'll have a great number of options to choose from. Some city/states may have higher taxes and maybe better roads. Some city/states may have lower taxes, but more crime. But what will happen for sure is that there'll be a place for everyone and every taste.

What we have now is a mass-national-scam called India where a dominant centre controls our lives, takes our money and redistributes it based on a political agenda. What we need is smaller units of administration, that will by nature be more accountable and hopefully more efficient.

Seriously, I wish Bangalore were an independent city.