Guess which country I am talking about

Let me start off with a series of six facts about an unnamed country. The objective is for the reader to guess which country I am talking about:

• This country was well protected from foreign invasions by natural barriers to outsiders for centuries and possibly much longer
• In the recent past (last 300 years),  it was colonized by Europeans
• The colonial European priests (when they were not proselytizing) came up with theories suggesting that the country is actually made of two *distinct* groups of people. One of these groups is supposed to have been the "natives" while the other group is supposed to have "invaded" the country and conquered the "native"  group
• The colonial European "scholars" who picked up this theory suggested that the group that allegedly invaded was European in race and so had the "right" to rule over rest of the country
• This "theory" was systematically taught to all the kids studying in the schools setup by the European priests. 
• After a while, the people of the country started looking at themselves as either belonging to one group or the other. This results in unnecessary political animosity and narrow minded divisions between the people of the country. 

 Now, take a guess as to which country I am talking about.. I can think of 4 possibilities..

• If you have no idea, then I have some suggested reading for you at the end, if you are interested.
• If your guess was India, then kudos to you.. this is indeed the case. But look at the next point..
• If your guess was Rwanda, then kudos to you.. that is indeed the case also.
• If you had some other country in mind that fits this picture, do let me know.. I will be interested in finding out more..

In essence, the colonial Europeans used similar tricks across the world to gain political control of the lands and plunder it. And it has deep relevance even to this day. I can give many examples for this w.r.t. India, but let me just give one for brevity -- Even today, you can see many people in India use the words "Aryan" and "Dravidian" in the sense of a race or a distinct people. There is even a bunch of political parties in my home state of Thamizh Naadu with "Dravida" in their names in the same racial sense. The irony is that these two words (Arya/Dravida) were never used in the racial sense until the colonial Europeans used them this way.

In the same way, in Rwanda, the "Tutsi" and "Hutu" were never distinct "races" till the colonial Europeans made them that way. Before the European arrival, Tutsi and Hutu boundary was fuzzy and one could become another. But anyone who has watched the heart rending film "Hotel Rwanda" knows a bit of what happened in 1994 in Rwanda.

If we are ever to become a prosperous country and lift our rotting millions out of poverty, we should first remove the colonial junk from the minds of Indian elite. (The "elite", in this context, includes you and me since both of us are way richer than the average Indian.) Otherwise, India will always be a pawn in someone else's chess board. The first "junk" we should remove from our mind is the false "Aryan/Dravidian" distinction amongst us.

Suggested reading topics:

• Film 'Hotel Rwanda'
• Book: A Thousand Hills, by Stephen Kinzer
• google Rwandan genocide 1994
• google Aryan Invasion Theory

Mandela & Mugabe - What we can learn from them

I am sure everyone reading this will know who Nelson Mandela is. And, to some extent, why he is celebrated universally. Not that many may know about Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. I follow African politics a small bit (admittedly, through Western/Westernized eyes because everything I read is by Western media). So I cannot stop myself from comparing the situations in South Africa and Zimbabwe, admittedly at a superficial level.

What both countries had/have in common:

• Colonial British rule, with all the implied ill-treatment and  plunder
• Brutal minority rule by the descendants of European settlers
• A freedom fighter who became the head of the State after independence
• A very diverse mix of African tribes in addition to European descendants

How the two countries differ(ed):

• S. African struggle was more non-violent compared to Zimbabwe
• S. African had/has a single party that dominated/dominates politics -- ANC
• Zimbabwe had a more rocky start, with at least two factions - ZANU-PF and ZAPU-PF
• S. Africa took the 'Mandela' path, while Zimbabwe took the 'Mugabe' path

What is the difference between 'Mandela' and 'Mugabe' paths?
In short, Mandela forgave his oppressors without forgetting the oppressions. Mugabe neither forgive nor forgot.

How can you say Mandela forgave, but not forget ?

• He forgave. If you question this, start with the film Invictus.
• He did not forget. You wont agree with this if your knowledge of SA is only from Invictus. In this case, I request you to start reading on two topics -- 'Truth and reconciliation commission of South Africa' and 'Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa'. You can also read his Nobel lecture here.

How can you say Mugabe did not forgive/forget?

• One of the main reasons why Mugabe got into fight with the West is because of his redistribution policies of the fertile farm lands of Zimbabwe. At independence, 1% of European-descendant Zimbabweans controlled 70% of land. Mugabe forcibly evicted these farmers and got his ZANU-PF  cronies to take them over. So, Mugabe explicitly targeted his former oppressor group.

What is the current situation in South Africa and Zimbabwe?

• South Africa has one of the world's most liberal constitution that is also reasonably implemented. Zimbabwe's constitution is pretty much one man's will.
• Elections are universally acknowledged as free and fair in SA. It is a sham in Zimbabwe.
• SA is in the G-20 club of economically important countries. Zimbabwe was the top ranked country in the world for inflation (running in millions and billions of  %) couple of years back

Why is this relevant for India? 
Like SA and Zimbabwe, India was/is also a victim of European colonial 'adventures' of the last 200-300 years. So we should learn from others in similar situation.

What is India's approach on the issue of ex-oppressors?
I think India's approach is neither as bad as Mugabe approach nor as good as Mandela approach. India has pretty much forgotten the oppressions without really forgiving the oppressors. This will be subject of another post, to avoid making this one too lengthy.

Notes and disclaimers:

• If you know of a book/writing etc. by a Zimbabwean or South African that contradicts any of my points above, please let me know. I will be happy to read it.
• Of course, SA still has tonnes of problems even today. I am not suggesting that SA is the ideal place in the world. But only that it is moving in the right direction. It has been less than 17 years since their independence. And Africa has suffered from 500 years of European colonization. The traumas at this scale take a looooong time to heal..

The moon illusion and human delusion

I am sure most of us have marveled at the beautiful, larger-than-usual moon at the horizon on a full moon night. In addition to being a beautiful sight, the full moon on the horizon can also teach us something very profound about the human mind and also about the nature of truth.

Before proceeding any further, I want to mention a quick fact. In case you do not agree with this, please try this for yourself on the next full moon day before reading beyond this paragraph. On a full moon night, after seeing the moon on the horizon, if you see the moon again after it has moved up in the sky, you will notice that its size is obviously smaller than before.

The key question is this -- why? Why did the size of the moon change in a matter of couple of hours?

When this question is put to people (believe me, I have asked dozens of my friends and acquaintances), the most common answer is that the moon is closer to the earth in the evening। This is a very logical answer -- you can obviously see a change in size of the moon. You vaguely remember something about the elliptical orbits of planets and moons. You may even remember about the perigee and apogee of the ellipse that you studied long time back! So this is the natural answer that comes to your mind॥ what could possibly be wrong with this answer? (There are other similar plausible stories like thinner atmosphere etc. All such stories will have 'scientific sounding' explanations.)

Now, imagine people's fury when I tell them that the apparent change in the size of the moon is an optical illusion. I get some very predictable responses. First and foremost, I get some very strange stares! Then come words like 'bullshit' or 'nonsense'. Even if people do not say these words out loud, they are convinced that you are bullshitting and you can see it in their eyes. Very very few people actually ask the correct next questions -- why/how is that?

I hope you, the reader, is one of those very few who ask the right questions ;) .. And here is the simple experiment you can do to prove this to yourself. Take a small coin (eg. 25 paisa or 5 cent). On a full moon night, when you see that the moon is big, find out the distance you have to keep the coin from your face to exactly block out the moon completely. Remember this distance. Now, repeat the experiment when the moon looks smaller on the same night. Make sure you repeat the measurement process several times on both occasions to get accurate results. Compare the two numbers. You will see that they match 100%, proving that the real size of the moon has not changed at all.

If you want more details, please start here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion
• http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/20jun_moonillusion/
  

So, here are the 'profound' lessons I promised earlier ;)

• Truth, even in hard sciences, is often hidden in plain view but it can still be subtle
  
• Denial is often our first response when our world view is challenged. This should not be the case if we are really going to learn from each other
  
• Human brain and the sense organs play many tricks on us. We can suffer from mass delusions. This is not only a Vedantic claim, but also hard science.
  

Notes and disclaimers:

• There is no dispute that moon illusion is an optical illusion. But the precise explanation for that is still controversial. You can google and find out more if you are interested ;)
• The reason I blogged about this first is that I find that the 'denial response' is the biggest block for people to really learn anything worthwhile. So by making people (myself included) aware of this, I hope that their natural inhibitions will reduce.