Between erudition and dogmatism : distinguishing parameters

As i deliberate on concepts pertaining to history,religion,politics etc..and try to piece together my jigsaw puzzle, various doubts keep running through my mind.
Inadvertantly, i also compare my current state of erudition with the level i had while studying in college.

The prominent differences that i have observed are the following :-

1. opinionated attitude : i used to indulge in heated discussions on topical issues with great interest with my seemingly intelligent peers. during such discussions, we would satisfactorily denounce all things that did not fit our 'broad' range of thinking. For example, if someone would raise an arguement in favour of naxalite terrorism stating the typical 'marxist argument' that tribals are deprived of development and hence their actions are justified, we would denounce him in our typical style and accuse him of being irrational, illogical etc.. without providing a single logical argument to justify our stand.
I am not claiming now that i endorse or reject the 'marxist argument', my point is to reflect on how opinionated i was and more importantly on how confident i was about 'knowing everything'.

2. emotional attitude : when i read books on monotheism and was exposed to the fatuousness of these ideas, it was hard to digest all in one go. nevertheless, my impressionable mind 'aborbed' the fact that there is something dogmatic in islam, but it also made various emotional generalizations based on that learning. one of these was that since islam is dogmatic, all muslims are inherently dogmatic and hence all muslims are evil. naturally, i felt an emotional pride for my religion and my country and even discussed with 'intelligent' people on how to fight muslims.
The fact that there are many patriotic muslims serving in the indian armed forces, that our ex-president and the pioneer of nuclear technology is a muslim, that our revered music composer is a muslim, that my car mechanic is also a muslim and all these people are more dedicated in their fields than many hindus never crossed my mind.
Again i am not endorsing or rejecting any fact about islam, i am merely pointing out my foolishness in making emotional judgements and looking at everyone through the same prism.

3. egoistic and excited attitude : when people praise your work, you often get overwhelmed and mould yourself to suit their liking. you speak and write keeping their interests in mind, trying to come up with a popular 'performance' which would win you more accolades. the urge to impress society and the opposite sex overpowers your honesty. this is what has happened with me on many ocassions. my inability to control my excitement while speaking about an issue has led me to tread into terrains i know nothing about. my inability to control my emotional surge has led me to make confident arguments which are often baseless and as fatuous as the claims i am attempting to counter.

There are many factors which distinguish an erudite thinker from a prejudiced believer, and more often than not, we tend to mistake one for the other.
the fine line between erudition and dogmatism is sometimes so flimsy that even logical thinkers may be misled into believeing that they are on the right side.

Therefore,in this period of intense activity, a young man's obsessions like pride,money,sex and his emotionally charged attitude may prove to disconcert his mental endeavours and disturb his fragile equilibrium.
Thus, stability of mind is a crucial ingredient in the making of a scholar.

Now, i understand the following saying :-
wisdom is as unattractive in the young as frivolity is in the old

My intellectual transition is like a bride's caravan journey

When a traditional hindu girl gets married, she is supposed to migrate from her parents family and assume her new role in a new environment - the role of a wife,mother and daughter-in-law.The critical juncture in her life is this transition from one world to the other and it is interesting to observe her psychological states during this phase.

My psychological journey is analogous to that of a 'migrating bride' in many ways as i feel myself migrate from the competitive world to the intellectual world :-

1. BRIDE :Having spent so many years in her parents home, where she was born and brought up, the bride feels uneasy to reject her family and resists change.

ME :Having spent so many years bound by the belief and idea of materialist and liberal society and being in an environment which loves 'sex and alcohol', i feel uneasy to renounce these pleasures and resist change.

2. BRIDE :She is unsure of her identity, unsure to where she really belongs, of whether her new home will accept her.

ME :I am unsure of my identity, to which side i really belong, of whether i really have an intellectual bent of mind, whether a doctorate in history is suitable for me.


3. BRIDE :But she knows she must go, she must perform her duty, she must realise her role and stay true to her identity.

ME :But I know from the core of my heart that i must go on, i must realise my true self and perform my role.


4. BRIDE :Post marriage,she stays connected with her previous home,family and friends. Despite performing her duties in her new avatar, she seldom visits and stays in touch with earlier relations, obviously with varying importance.

ME :I can imagine that i would always be connected with old school and college friends. Despite performing my duties in my new avatar, i would seldom visit them and stay in touch with earlier relationships, obviously with varying importance.


5. BRIDE :Gradually, she becomes too involved in her new role and too overwhelmed by her duties that most of the old bonds fade away.Her new role gets reinforced subsequently.Her friend circle reduces to include her family and to visit old friends is now a distraction which she generally avoids.


ME :Gradually, i wish i become too involved in my new role and too overwhelmed by my duties that most of my old bonds fade away. I hope that my new role gets reinforced subsequently.My friend circle would reduce to include my family and to visit old friends would then become a distraction which i would avoid.

From unruly student to disciplined teacher : have i bitten off more than i could chew ?

Life has suddenly become very serious for me. Sometimes i really miss my student (read hostel) life.
There has been such a huge transition in the last one and a half years that it becomes an arduous task to adapt. While i was a flippant and carefree young man in my university days, i have transformed into a disciplined teacher. My immaturity in university was reflected in my abysmal academic records and erratic sleeping schedules. My maturity today is reflected in my strict adherence to a fixed schedule which helps prepare students for GRE and SAT.

How did i change so much ?

Being an academic and a lover of non-fiction books, i spend most of my time trying to seriously analyse an issue from different perspectives.This serious thinking mood is infectious and tends to stay with me longer than i intend it to.
With a brief glimpse into the spiritual world,I have understood that all material satisfaction is temporary, but at the same time i am not serious enough to devote myself to spirituality.
Living with parents also has an effect.While my mother wants me to be more devoted to god, i do not feel that urge so strongly.
I never want to be over dependent on mom because i want to be a self sufficient man because i love my freedom and my independence.


Why i cant go back ?

Life is about moving across different phases and staying true to your real self.
It is not about indulging your vices at will. It is about understanding dharma and your role - your true identity.
Having said that, i also need to find a medium to indulge my material senses in a controlled way. The question is how to :D


In sum, this phase of life is hard because you cant allow yourself to fall on either side. You have to walk a thin line between seriousness and levity because the fall on either side may prove to be fatal.

That will be all for the day :)

How journalists manipulate public opinion.

In the backdrop of the NIra Radia tapes controversy, i have tried to analyse the column published by Vir Sanghvi on 15th August,2009.

Find the original article here

 

My interpretations will be visible in bold and they are interspersed between the lines.

 

                                                                                                           THE ANALYSIS

 

Whenever people tell me that India has changed after the liberalization of the 1990s, that business is now independent of government and that India’s industrialists now get on with the job quietly, I always say, ”Well, up to a point…”

 

Brilliant start, makes a good base to start his essay.

 

Older readers may remember a business-politics battle that dominated the second half of the 1980s. Dhirubhai Ambani was emerging as one of India’s top industrialists. While many people reckoned that he had bent the rules and paid off politicians to get there, only one industrialist really took him on.

 

 He creates an analogy which will make it easier for people to relate, but this analogy has a twofold purpose

1.     To reinforce faith in the congress

2.     To villainize nusli wadia and correspondingly denigrate anil ambani

 

As the article progresses, we shall observe how he manages to implant both these ideas in the minds of his readers.

 

That was Nusli Wadia of Bombay Dyeing. Because Wadia had close links with politicians in all parties (he knew BJP leaders well, he had friends in the Congress, etc.) and in the media (he was something of a godson to Ramnath Goenka) he was able to put Dhirubhai on the defensive.

 

The creation of poles has begun : positive pole refers to dhirubhai (congress) and negative pole refers to nusli wadia (anti-congress)

 

The Ambanis retaliated with a counter-attack that rocked the foundations of India’s government. By forging letters which Amitabh Bachchan delivered to his friend Rajiv Gandhi, they were able to convince the government that Wadia and finance minister V.P. Singh were really targeting Rajiv. The government went after Nusli Wadia in response. Wadia joined up with V.P. Singh to defeat the government.

Eventually, Rajiv Gandhi did lose the election, largely because of a coalition created by anti-Reliance forces and Nusli Wadia made it his mission to destroy Reliance.

 

The first purpose has been achieved – he has managed to convince us that rajiv gandhi’s defeat was a conspiracy, while at the same time he has continued to tarnish nusli wadia.

 

 You might think that 20 years later, everything has changed. And certainly, Nusli Wadia seems to have buried the hatchet with the Ambanis and gone on to find success in other fields (biscuits, property, etc.).

 But looking at the way the Ambani battle has raged over the last  couple of months, I am beginning to wonder if India has really changed that much. In this version of the story, Mukesh Ambani, with his Congress links, is playing the Dhirubhai Ambani role. Anil Ambani is playing the Nusli Wadia part. Like Wadia, he has friends in the BJP (he thinks Narendra Modi should be Prime Minister), in UP politics (just as V.P. Singh backed Wadia so Mulayam Singh is backing Anil) and the Congress.

 

Clearly the poles get translated along with the analogous situation :- positive pole now refers to mukesh (congress) while negative pole now refers to anil (anti-congress).

 

Just as Wadia was consumed by his mission to destroy Dhirubhai, Anil seems consumed by a desire to destroy Mukesh. Wadia was constantly launching salvos against Reliance just as Anil does these days. Wadia would attack Congress ministers for their closeness to Reliance; Anil is doing the same. Wadia would hire such lawyers as Ram Jethmalani to fight Reliance in the courts; Anil has done the same thing.

 

                Reinforcing the strength of both positive and negative poles.

 

And the impact on India in the 21st century is not that dissimilar from the impact on India in the 1980s. Already, the papers are obsessed with this battle – it gets far more coverage than it deserves. Already, we are looking at ministers in the government and deciding who is on which side. (“Shinde is in Anil’s pocket, Mukesh knows Pranab well,” etc.)

 

Deliberately tries to downplay the significance of government and courts so that decision is ruled in favour of mukesh (positive pole). The sleight of slippery journalism is the last line, “Shinde in Anils Pocket but Mukesh just knows Pranab, to show that Anil buys politicians where as mukesh just knows them.

  

Anil has done what no industrialist since Nusli Wadia has dared to do: he has openly taken on the government of India and he has made no secret of his links with the Opposition, allowing Mulayam Singh to disrupt Parliament on his behalf.

               

Clearly, anil ambani (negative pole) is being targeted – even a fool can see through this.

 

 All this is ostensibly a battle over rates charged for gas. I don’t know who is in the right in this case: Mukesh or Anil. My friend Tony Jesudasan who represents Anil took me out to lunch and made out a case for Anil. I was totally convinced till my friend Niira Radia, who represents Mukesh, gave me the other side, which frankly, seemed just as convincing to my inexpert ears.

 

Pretends to be objective betraying the line of two poles that he has clearly been following in his article throughout. 

The truth is that the vast majority of Indians are not qualified to judge the rights and wrongs of this very complicated issue. It’s a matter   that judges and top lawyers should settle away from the glare of publicity.

 

The irony is that THE AUTHOR OF THIS COLUMN IS CAPITALIZING ON THIS VERY HYPE THAT HE SEEMS TO BE DISMISSING. HE KNOWS HIS CAPACITY AS A PROMINENT JOURNALIST AND HE IS AWARE HOW TO MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION. IF HE WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN QUASHING THE HYPE, THE LEAST HE WOULD HAVE DONE WAS TO KEEP QUIET AND STAY AWAY FROM THIS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.                       

 

 So here’s my point: why should the people of India be expected to judge who is right or wrong? We are rarely asked for our opinions on corporate battles. And when other companies have a problem with a ministry, this rarely merits much attention.

Why then is Anil Ambani headline news day after day, week after week? Why is Parliament disrupted because of the battle? Why is the government of India being forced to defend itself at public fora?

 

Now he seeks to downplay the issue because he does not want the government to continue examining it. He does not want the courts to implement their judgement, he does not want the people to be interested in the issue, because IF THE ISSUE IS SORTED OUT AS PER THE MoU between the two sides, IF THE ISSUE IS SORTED OUT AS PER THE HIGH COURT RULING which goes according to the legal document - MoU, it will be a huge blow for the author’s positive pole (mukesh).Basically, he wants the issue to be handled away from the scrutiny of public so that no one cares about evaluation of justice and his positive pole then stands a higher chance.

More importantly, that is what he has been asked to do. (or payed to do)

Note the line : Why is Anil Ambani headline news ? Clearly, targeting his negative pole.

                 

Who are these people, anyway? And why do the Ambanis think that all of us should take sides in their battle? Or that we should care what happens to them?

 

He crosses all limits of hypocrisy by saying “why should we take sides” and “why should we care what happens to them”, while all along this article he has done nothing but favoured one pole (mukesh) over another (anil).       

 

Our problem, I fear, is that we have forgotten the lessons of the 1980s. In that decade, we allowed Nusli Wadia and Dhirubhai to turn their corporate war into a national issue. We allowed corporate greed and financial manipulation to threaten the very foundations of the Indian government.

 

                Manipulating with rhetoric, because he wants to reinforce the strength of poles.

 

Nothing good came out of that experience. When the dust cleared, the corporate situation was exactly what it had been before the fight began. Dhirubhai continued to rise. And Wadia continued to be edged out of the textile business.

 

                Positive pole (Dhrirubhai) continues to rise, negative pole(Nusli Wadia) continues to decline.

 

But the rest of us all lost out. Rajiv Gandhi’s mandate was frittered away because his ministers took sides in a corporate battle. The Indian middle class was conned into backing V.P. Singh, who gave us a few disastrous months of governance, leaving us with a Mandal legacy. The bureaucracy was corrupted and spoilt. The media were forced to take partisan stands.

 

Reiterates how Rajiv Gandhi’s defeat was an accident, a mere conspiracy. Again reflects the author’s partisan perspective.

 

My worry is that history is repeating itself. When a corporate war begins to emerge as the biggest news story in a country that faces so many problems, then you know that something has gone badly wrong.

Worse still, the rest of the world has begun to question the India story. Last week, the Financial Times (London) featured the Ambani dispute and wrote that if oligarchs could create so much havoc in India, then there was something wrong with our system. It made the familiar point about how India’s natural resources were being hijacked by oligarchs.

 

The use of rhetoric for emotional blackmail ... appears so simplistic and ideal by portraying himself as an advocate of national cause. In this point , he is merely repeating what Ms.Radia has asked him to say.

 

So, here’s my advice to the Ambanis: I like you guys. I’ve known you for a long time. But please fight your battles elsewhere. They have nothing to do with us. And you are damaging India with your media campaigns and with your political friends who disrupt Parliament on your behalf.

               

Tries to show his neutrality which betrays the line he has taken throughout the article. He tries to appear simplistic because he does not want to end on a partisan note or atleast wants the readers to praise his objectivity.

 

And here’s my advice to the politicians: Don’t make the same mistakes all over again. Are you Samajwadis or Ambaniwadis? For India’s sake, let the Ambanis solve their problems on their own.

               

Why only samajwadis ? still continuing to denigrate Anil Ambani or his supporters                   (Samajwadi Party)

 

Just do the jobs we elected you to do. Because your loyalty should be to the people of India not to Mukesh, Anil, or any other industrialist.

It is us you represent.

 

What an ideal way to end. He knows that a positive ending suggests a positive tone and people will never doubt his credibility and ‘objectivity’.

All purposes solved !!

Posted via email from ankurk's posterous