Taking our tax dollars for a ride with Santa

On paper there is separation of state and religion in the US. In reality the state policies are strongly influenced by the views of the major religion (example, abortion and gay rights). Come November/ December evidence of state support for religion emerges as different local governments spend tax dollars in putting up Christmas wreaths, decorations and lights.

Today, after being in Chicago for 11 years I chanced upon an interesting way to take our tax dollars for a ride... with Santa. Yes, I am talking about the Chicago Transit Authority's annual Santa trains. I had seen posters for the same previous years but never did I imagine that it would be such a big affair. The entire train was decked with lights - inside and out. Gone are the usual advertisements, replaced by corny jokes about Christmas. Even the seat covers were different - not the usual blue but the Christmas green and red with Santa/ trees and elves. The driver mentioned that it was the 18th year that the CTA was doing this and no other metropolitan transport authority does anything like this. Now, that is a dead give away on the merits of this promotion. If the idea has not caught on in 18 years it is a really bad idea. I am sure CTA authorities will spin this as a service that brings immeasurable joy to its riders. I am sure its riders (including me) will agree that we will be more joyful if the transport authority was in green, fares are not increased every year (how do they manage to remain in red even after increasing fares every year? they are not the only ones... usps is in the same position) the cars were clean, tracks were upgraded and the trains ran on time. It should not take 40 minutes to travel about 6 miles during rush hour. The suburban rail service, Metra, does 36 miles in that time.

Enjoy the photos of our tax dollars going on a ride with Santa.








BTW, my wife who took the regular train coming behind the holiday service somehow ended up ahead of me.

Aiyo rama it is not Valentine's day but Pink Chaddi day

I love this one - very creative. I hate the morality police goons. Sri Ram Sena is nothing but a bunch of thughs who have banded together and branded themselves.

It is interesting that all issues in India seem to have Ram as the common thread – Ram janmabhoomi, Ram sethu and Sri Ram sena. I always though Ram as the national mythological hero was a bad choice. They say he is the “Adarsh Purush” (ideal man). Is he really? First, he blindly follows his parents order. Then, he kills Vali by deceit for Sugreeva. And, finally, decides to go with the masses and doubt his wife’s chastity. So, what is so “ideal” about these actions?

I wish it was Krishna who was the national mythological hero. In him you have a “rock star” – favorite of women (note: I did not say he was a womanizer), good with the flute (did Ram have any talent. He sounds like a whiner to me), inspiring leader (he got Arjuna to drink his “kool-aid” ) and shrewd tactician (how many times did he pull tricks to win the game?). I bet he would have seen the humor in the “Pink Chaddi” campaign. Hell, he probably would have had a collection of pink chaddis:).

Race and religion...comparing India to the US

It is often said that the United States has a very clear separation between state and religion, and it has made great strides in overcoming racial inequality. And, often the comment about India is that it is mired by caste and religion. But, what does this mean to an average person in both places.

Take for example the US election of 2008. It has been said by more than a few that having an African American candidate shows the strides US has made in overcoming racial inequality. Some have even gone on to say that having an African American as the president would mean racial inequality is a thing of the past. But, is it truly so. Every day I take the public transport (the "El") to work. I often observe how the seats get filled on the "El." It is a study of people's prejudices. Invariably, seats next to African Americans are the last to be taken. I bet statistical analysis of the sample will show that this is not a random phenomenon.

In India, we have had at least one "untouchable" President but even I would not say that everyone in India is treated equal. However, I do know that rarely will people avoid certain seats on the public transport because of the caste of the other person. This is because often there is no way to determine the caste of the other person from their physical attributes.

So, you have a group of people in the US who on a day to-day basis see and feel some form of prejudice against them even when they are not directly interacting with the other party (and, see less or no prejudice when they are interacting directly with the other party). And, in India, you have groups of people who may not see any prejudice until they are directly interacting with the other party.

Now, you may argue that I am mixing race and caste. I think that is just arguing over the use of right words. I guess what I am trying to say is people everywhere feel at ease with people who look and act like them.

When it comes to religion, both India and the US are secular states. Yet, their approach to secularism is quite different and the results have been quite different (Just compare the number of religion related clashes/ incidents). Are the results different because of the approach? I don't know. I would argue that the people in the US practice a good number of religions/ beliefs. It may not be the same as in India but in terms of percentages they might be in the same league.

For a nation, that professes separation of state and religion US is obsessed with religion. The candidate's religion/ beliefs are a key part of their candidature. Barrack Obama has gone to great lengths to prove that he is a Christian (and hide his middle name - Hussein). The only religious holiday in the country is Christmas and you will see the state spending lot of money to decorate the city and buildings for this holiday. Compare this with India where there have been Muslim presidents, Christian Chief Ministers (Governors), the state has holidays for pretty much every possible religion (I call India - Bumper Holiday Nation) and the state does not spend money decorating buildings for any religious holiday.

So, what makes Africans still move to the US in search of opportunities even when African Americans make noise about the inequality and US has a lot less race/caste and religion related incidents than India? I think the law, the rules and their implementation is a clear and consistent in the US. So, while not everyone agrees with it, it has enough "buy-in." As for religion, in the US, for the most part, the state does not involve itself with religion even if its subjects feel strongly about their beliefs. In India, the state is involved in religion trying to "balance" the differences in numbers. And, when there is not enough to go around for everyone, state's effort to "balance" based on race/caste and/or religion results in everyone feeling that they have been cheated out of fair deal.

Economics of Conversions

Religious conversions | The moment of truth | Economist.com

It is alternately amusing and alarming to read the simplistic views magazines like The Economist put out regarding conversions and castes. Or, the simplistic approach pushes their viewpoint. At least, when it comes to India and conversions there are a lot more. Simply put when there is not enough to go around for all giving benefits to a few based on their religion or caste is going to cause issues.

I do not understand why religious conversions where prosthelization is involved is not considered as dangerous as racism. After all, it comes from the belief that "my religion/ faith is better than yours. And, you are damned unless you convert to mine."

As for India, the government's effort at "secularism" has caused polarization of religions/ faiths. How you may ask. There is religion based voting districts, economic reservations. In all these, the people who practice the majority religion and the small minority religions that do not feel the need to market themselves or assert their superiority are given a raw deal. And, to add insult to injury the government controls/ appoints people to religious institutions of majority religion when they do not even monitor the source of funds for others.

Ultimately, one cannot deny the "economics of conversion." The folks who are converting (at least the majority of them) are not converting because they had the same epiphany that Marc Schleifer, mentioned in the article, had. They are trying to find their way out of oppressing economic circumstances they are in due to social (caste) or economic (access to opportunities) or both. Unfortunately, they realize a little later that the social (caste) issues cut across religion. In India, you have separate Dalit (what you generally classify as "untouchable") Christian churches in a class/ caste less religion. Christians in Kerala and Mangalore take pride it telling everyone that they were high caste Hindus before conversion. The reason most of these high caste Hindus converted was again social oppression.

I remember reading an article by Germaine Greer who questioned Mother Theresa's charity. If the poor need to give up their faith to be saved what is so magnanimous about it. That was her question. I think the answer is we are all animals - our sense of self-preservation is better defined than our sense of belief/ faith/ religion etc...

Rooting for normalcy

I like many others was dead against US military action against Iraq. It just was not right whether the reason was WMD or bringing democracy to the region. There was very little evidence supporting the first reason. As for democracy, I believe it may not work in some places and when people are ready for it they will clamor for it. Implementing democracy by military action is quite stupid.

After the military action there was a time when I kept tally of civilians (or, should I call it what Madeleine Albright called - collateral damage) and military personnel killed. After a while, I started feeling sorry for both. The military because I bet they never expected to be fighting this war. The civilians because back in Saddam’s days, they may not have had democracy but they knew who the enemy were. As long as they kept their mouth shut and a low profile, they had a job and life. Give me liberty or give me death sounds great but life triumphs liberty. As long as there is life, there is hope.

Now, when most of the original groups against war want the US troops to come back I feel the other way. US presence gives Iraq and the region a better chance for normalcy. There was an article in the Newsweek about how Americans are taught very early in life about cleaning up their mess - Iraq is our mess. I wonder if the folks who want the troops back now would feel the same way if things were going great in the US (economically) and /or in Iraq (politically). Going into Iraq in 2003 was wrong and leaving Iraq anytime soon will also be wrong.

A few weeks back I happened to listen to Parag Khanna, author of "The Second World" talk on Foreign Exchange (BTW, what is with desis/BBCDs/ABCDs and foreign affairs - Farred Zakaria followed by Daljit Dhaliwal?). He claims to be advising Barack Obama on foreign policy. According to him, splitting of Iraq is "inevitable." He said it with such nonchalance that it made me wonder how he would feel if his home country was attacked and broken into pieces. Of course, he like many others know that it is unlikely to happen. Afterall, there is a large ocean separating it from the rest of the land mass where the problems are. I am no expert in geopolitical stuff but if Iraq splits it is likely to involve at least Turkey and Iran in the mess. Afghanistan and Pakistan is already a mess. So, we will have instability in all countries between Israel and India. These two countries will probably see more terrorist incidents after all they do not have any buffer zone.

I had a few friends tell me - "Why bother about Iraq? After all, we did not give a damn about Rwanda. And, see Vietnam did well without us." Rwanda was not a mess that the US created. As for Vietnam war, it was a war of political ideology. Both, Vietnam and its backers were keen to prove that their way is better. So, there was a will to win even if it was to be an empty victory.

Secularism, Separation of State and Religion

I have always wondered what "secularism", "separation of state and religion" means. Personally, I believe "secularism" means the state has no business in anybody's beliefs (note I did not use the word religion on purpose) and the state treats everyone the same way irrespective of their beliefs.

However, in India the official government approach is every one should get a special deal and if you are not the majority you need to get special privileges. Of course, that does not work well when there is not enough to go around. And, I am not sure if it a great way to promote unity - by promoting differences and offering different deals.

Then, there is the US which pretty much everyone says does a great job of "secularism" and "separation of state and religion." But, does having an offical holiday for Christmas or using public money to deck up the streets and buildings for Christmas go against the separation of state and religion? I remember asking a Jewish colleague whether Hannukah is a holiday. The response was immediate - "No. This is a Christian nation." Yes, the majority of the folks are Christians. And, no wonder that every now and then (and, esp. during election time) there is a need for the leaders to prove their Christian credentials.

I would love to see the state offer a set number of holidays in a year which people can take whenever they want and no state money spent on decorating buildings and streets for the holidays.

Oh... good lord here we go again

BBC NEWS | South Asia | For and against Lord Ram's bridge

In the last few weeks I have come across a number of articles about religion in India. The Economist had a special feature about religion in which they referred to India as the most religious nation. I am not sure if that is good or bad but I guess the reference was meant to paint India in a bad light. Sometimes I feel that people who grew up with a religion of the book find it hard to understand the millions of gods and customs in India. They keep looking for the most "authoritative" religious book.

Around the same time when this BBC article on Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project was published I came across an interview with a Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy about the project. In the interview he presents a number of reasons why the project does not make sense. Now, since this guy spent his life on ships I guess he know what he is talking about when he talks about the distances and costs.

I wish BBC and Economist will try to present a balanced and informed view of matters. Instead, often it looks like they have formed an opinion and select people, facts and events that support their opinion. Maybe, they did not plan it that way but sensationalizing the event will sell. More people are likely to read an article about a "development project" that got cancelled due to "a bridge made by monkeys for a god" than an interview with a former captain of the Indian Navy.

Adam's bridge and monkey business

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Offer to quit in India gods row

One more of the comical episodes that color many development projects in India. I bet the guys protesting the creation of the canal are not from south tamilnadu. I bet most of them have not been to south tamilnadu and good number of them have not heard of ramesvaram. Of course, you do not need to know all these to protest on "matters of religious bearing". And, then the government (like all "secular" indian governments) tables a report questioning the existence of "Ram" (wonder if they would do similar reports questioning if "jesus" and "muhammed" ever lived). And, of course, the report has no bearing on the project. The project has to be assessed and communicated to people on its merits not on the existence of "Ram". Amidst, all this minister Ambika Soni offers to resign - great! Does that change anything related to the project?

So, why not try to communicate the details of the project - its merits and costs to people close to the site and affect by the project in simple terms. Now, that is not as difficult as proving the existence or non-existence of "Ram".

Project Implicit and me

The Imus controversy and the Dateline NBC show prompted me to take the test they showed on the program - Project Implicit.

No big surprises in my case. The result page says it all. I come from a culture where the gods are made blue (though the original reference is - color of monsoon clouds) because calling them black would be bad, I guess. I still have not seen a blue monsoon cloud.

Godless Reservationists

so, the DMK government in Tamilnadu has said it is ready to implement separate reservations for the Muslim and Christian communities. The irony is not lost on me.

The government cites a GO (Government Order?) dating back to 1920s to justify its actions. Hey, weren't the Brits ruling India at that time? Didn't they "divide and rule" India? And, the DMK which gets its roots from DK with its atheist leanings is the one to implement religion based reservation. Finally, back when India got independence a few religious communities explicitly stated they do not want any reservations. This included the Parsis and the Christians. Looks like in the years after independence the society in general (and, Chrisitians in India in particular) has regressed and now Christians being given reservations.

Wonder if reservation for Christians have to do with the increase in number of Dalit Christians - who might have changed their religion to escape the effects of the Hindu caste system but now are part of the Christian caste system and still need props.

It was funny reading the user posts to the original article. One guy said the government should offer reservation to all non Tamilians since they are a minority in Tamilnadu. Now, I think that merits a debate since the states in India are setup based on linguistic majority. I would have qualified for reservation in this scenario. I can tell you of the instances when I was made fun of/ ridiculed for my accent, food habits and stereotyped. Most of the time I chose to deal it with the international sign of "up yours" - the middle finger sticking out.

The "M" in DMK stands for "Munetram" (progress). I guess they should see a lot of progress in their vote bank and their bank accounts but for the general masses it is incompetence triumphing in name of social justice.

Finally!!!

UP court stays subsidy to Haj pilgrims

It took a while for someone to go to court on this. And, it took a right wing hindu organization symapthizer to do it. But, what the court has ruled is absolutely right. A secular state has no business supporting its people's religious trips.

New face of terror and new realities to face

India police detail role of militants in attacks - Asia - Pacific - International Herald Tribune

Reports from police investigating the latest Bombay blasts indicate one of the ringleaders was a muslim software engineer who until recently was working for a large multi-national. Now, this is not the first time that folks involved in terror/ anit-social activities have come from such a background. But, often this is not the background that is associated with terror, especially in India.

The story always is - the person felt marginalized, did not have access to opportunities, was in a financially weak situation etc...It is almost as if with all such conditions it was "natural" for them to go and blow up innocent people. And, so what does the government do - offer more handouts to the marginalized communities around election time.

Now, it is clear that there are factors other than economics or revenge at work. The only way I can explain this is - religion. These people feel that their religion is better than others and so everyone should either join me or die.

The DH Imam wasted no time in absolving LeT and blamed it on the hindu radicals. He claims he has information to that effect. And, he continues "We were rulers here for 800 years. Inshaallah, we shall return to power here once again". This guy is not some fringe radical. He is the religious head of one of the biggest mosques in India and is a well known religious leader. And, this is not the first time he has indulged in such statements.

It is time for the so called "secular" indians and political parties to determine if they want to be an Islamic nation. And, have no doubts this won't be the second coming of the Mughal dynasty.

I guess what we need is not new anti-terror laws like TADA, POTA etc... We need a law that make any attack on the secular nature of the nation a crime. That way we can throw the hindu radicals, muslim radicals and prostelizing missionaries all behind bars.

PS: Why is that many Islamic radical groups have words "democratic", "freedom" etc... in their names?