All citizens are equal * (Conditions Apply)

(I noticed a draft of this post while labelling other posts. I had started writing it over a year ago. Recent events - involving Continental Airlines, APJ Abdul Kalam, a bunch of fools in the Indian Parliament, and a moronic blog entry on TOI - have prompted me to post it at the present time)

"...we have made many mistakes. But through all these missed opportunities and mistakes we have stoutly defended our freedom, democracy,the rule of law, liberty and equality for all citizens, and our proud civilisation and history"

P.Chidambaram in "Abject Poverty can be Eradicated": India of My Dreams.

Yes. India of your dreams is right. For if one were to actually check each of these with simple examples from daily life and reality, it ought to shock us back out of this grandiose delusion.

To save time and effort, and because the others were not what impelled me to write this post, I am going to leave them aside and focus on just one of these principles we have so "stoutly defended".

Equality for all citizens.

It is utter crap. And if we only look around, there are several examples to show that we are being lied to. To. Our. Faces.

If we were all, from A-Z, equal then I(we) wouldn't have to go the airport, for example, and read a big board that says "All persons are subject to strict security checking procedures except the following....

-The Prime Minister
-The President
-E T and C

I don't think there exists a rational explanation for why they should be exempt. On what grounds are they allowed to pass while others have to be checked and frisked?

I don't have a problem with being checked and frisked, really. The problem is the preferential treatment.

A big deal was made about Kalam being asked to go through a security check just like everyone else. Kalam being the unassuming man that he is, didn't act fussy, and co-operated. But the other ministers of India would have none of this and raised a hue and cry in the Rajya Sabha demanding that the airline apologise. The Minister for Aviation obliged, as did the airline.

Now I can think of two reasons why current MPs would get so flustered by an incident that concerns them not

1. They have fragile egos and their sense of importance and worth is governed by whether they are asked to pass through a metal detector or not. If someone who actually has some strength of character was "treated this way", what chance do they have to convince themselves that they are worth a dime?

2. They clearly want to waste time in the parliament discussing petty things like this (and what language people should talk in!), rather than discussing ways to deal with other problems that the nation is grappling with.

Rather than regarding it as an "insult to the nation" if politicians and former politicians are asked to undergo security checks, I think it will do us all a lot of good if they willingly participated. They are meant to be leaders right? Why don't they lead us through the metal detector as well then! Plus, if they do it, it might knock some sense into non-politicians who think they are VIPs because of how heavy their pockets are.

I don't think CA should have apologised. This reminds me of an incident at Bukhara, New Delhi where I overheard two foreigners request the waiter to make their kebabs less spicy. The waiter promptly told them that kebabs were spicy by nature, and would not be changed. I like the whole take-what-you-get-or-fuck-off attitude. If CA has certain security procedures to follow, it shouldn't have to apologise for them.

The guy on the TOI blog said the Kalam incident was like asking Hillary Clinton to go through a security check when she visits India. I don't think there is anything wrong with that either. It's a security check for god's sake! One should question their intentions when they vehemently oppose it, just because it causes one to wonder what they have to hide.

The last line of an article in TOI made me really angry- "There have been instances where Indian VIPs have been treated shabbily at foreign airports."

If going through security checks is "shabby treatment" then isn't it shameful and worrying that the GOI (meant to be by, of and for the people) is okay with every other citizen of India being subjected to it?

Another example, and I am sure everyone who has been through this experience will agree, is the fact that whenever a "VIP" passes by a certain area, or is about to, they have all these cops stopping regular traffic. It is the most absurd and revolting thing! To be in a car, waiting for some man/woman to drive past, and cooperate while you are effectively being told that he/she is more important than you are.

I mean, if the proud pricks have to be somewhere in such a hurry, and if they are so bloody important, they ought to have the brains enough to leave their homes a little sooner keeping in mind the time of day and traffic flow like the rest of us do.

Even if you leave aside the fact that it is absolutely shameful to pledge allegiance to principles of equality, liberty and justice for all and clearly give priority to some citizens over the others, it is a violation of democratic principles. Why should I wait for the other guy to pass? Because they tell me to. And because they will either shoot me or throw me in prison for trying to get onto a road that's supposedly meant for everyone and that the government maintains by fleecing people of their hard earned money.

It violates this alleged equality by adding a " * " and a small print.

* except for some, who are special.

THE LOVER MOURNS THE LOSS OF LOVE

Pale brows, still hands and dim hair,

I had a beautiful friend

And dreamed that the old despair

Would end in love in the end:

She looked in my heart one day

And saw your image was there;

She has gone weeping away

- Yeats

Hum jaante hai jannat ki haqeeqat lekin, dil ko behelaane ke liye yeh khayal accha hai

(Snippets of an old conversation with someone)

hmm...old age can be weird. I don't mind it as long as all my sense organs are working fine, I can still walk/ run around, and other body parts don't give up. Basically, age doesn't matter as long as qualitty of life doesn't deteriorate.

I am very amused by this talk about "wanting to be dead"

I mean death is so amazing as a thing! It's the one thing you can't really talk about 'wanting' in seriousness without sounding stupid. Because wanting something always connotes desiring something because you anticipate a good result. i.e. you want something because of how it will make you feel once your desire is satiated.

With death, that's impossible. You can want it all you like, but when you get it, you won't be around to experience the fulfillment of the want. So till the time you are capable of feeling and thought, you are left wanting. and when one isn't capable of feeling and thought, how does anything matter anyway?

death is not the end of suffering. If you suffer in life, and are seeking escape in death, its pretty hopeless. Because you will suffer till you are alive. and when you die, it doesn't matter if there is suffering or not because you wont be alive to suffer its presence or enjoy its absence.

.....

Having said that, I talk about wanting to die all the time! :-) but that's more for the sake of drama. And finding expression of an extreme kind for what is otherwise inexpressible.

I think my attitude to death is one of indifference. Not wanting or not-wanting.

................

To escape pain for what? Why do we want to escape pain? Because absence of pain is desirable. Otherwise there is no point wanting it. But with death even that wont be there. Except for others to discuss at an intellectual level. Or for us to discuss it now, at an intellectual level.
Not for the one who has died. For him, as long as he "was" he was suffering. When he "was" no more, well, the verb "to be" can't be applied in any form

.............

For whom is it over? You talk about something unpleasant being "over" for someone, only if they have experienced its absence. Otherwise you wouldn't know it is over right? And how is that possible after death? Except for the alive ones to talk about and discuss?

There is no 'you' after you die.. except in the minds of others you have left behind.
And yes, the idea of death as the end of suffering offers us solace when we are alive. But actually, its a delusion.

.............

But no matter when you die, the pain remains till you do. Even to say "extra pain" and "extra suffering", one has to go way beyond the here and now and it is still a very distanced perspective on the matter.
For instance, lets say I have died. This question of "would have suffered more if she were alive" is something others will discuss after I am gone.
also, "if he hadn't died, he would still be suffering", again this doesn't mean much to the person who dies. If I think that "if I die, I will no longer suffer" makes no sense at all. There will be no "I" after I die who "will no longer suffer"

It is as if a pigeon is trapped in a cage, and one day the cage is opened and it has its first shot at freedom. What I am trying to say vis a vis death is the equivalent of the pigeon's neck snapping just when it is reaching the open door.

............

yes... it sounds like quite a plan in theory. That's what I am saying. It's great comfort for the alive ones to talk about it like this. But in actuality, and if one doesn't believe in life after death and what not, then death is the end of you. Not of the suffering. And no, it doesn't suffice to say if you are not there, then there is no suffering.

Your saying "if they continued to exist, they would continue to suffer" still doesn't help the dead man. Again, you may not say it that way, but the desire for something positive (in this case the avoidance of continued suffering) is implied in the cessation of something negative.

It's not an enemy you can outsmart or defeat.

Imagine it like this. Let's say there's an ostrich who buries its face in the sand to escape a predator. When its face is buried, it can't breathe, see, hear, or feel. It is closed to experience of any kind. In order to experience again, it has to come out, and when it does, the predator is still there.

As I understand it now, your argument is that when it can't experience anything, it can't experience the predator either. But what I am saying is that the second part of this statement is incorrect. For to say "it cannot experience" implies an "it"'s existence. But that is not the case. You can say "it isn't". But once you establish that, any other or further negation is not possible. For when something isn't, the possibility of other verbs being negated ceases to exist

.................

For me to hold the idea that death brings an end to their suffering is a functional one to have. But it doesnt help the one on the other side.

For example, I was glad when Arundhati (an injured and suffering elephant) succumbed to her pain and died. For it gave me mental peace to think that her pain had come to and end. But really, thats a belief I have in order to comfort myself.

For till the time she could feel, she felt pain. So when she died, it was not like she was relieved from her pain. There was no "she" left.

................

The only thing I am suggesting is that however adaptive and great this idea of death as an escape is, it is a purely theoretical one and it can never be anything else. Experientially, it is impossible.

Suffering is a constant companion, a sangdil saathi.

Amsterdamgang!

Sinister signs

The badey kathin se woh raaste

Badi purkhatar thi woh manzilen

Tera saath jinko naseeb tha

Woh hi dasht-e-gham se guzar gaye