Why India's "LGBT" Community Should Get Full Legal Equality

The recent groundbreaking verdict of the Supreme Court of India in 2014 on the issue of "trans" rights prompted me to think about the rights movement of the "LGBT" community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender). I think it is high time for Indians, particularly the educated youth, to approach LGBT rights from a rationalist and humanist perspective, rather than be swayed by unscientific and false dogmatic propaganda. I set about researching the views of modern science and modern rule of law on people with alternate gender/sexual identities. But more importantly, I wanted to understand the views of Indian culture (specifically, Tamil culture and Sanskritic Hindu culture), history, and politics on people with alternate gender/sexual identities. My investigation has led me to the inescapable conclusion that on all 3 counts, Indians with alternate sexual/gender identities should get full legal equality and cultural recognition. I think India has taken a gigantic step forward by recognizing trans rights, but it needs to walk all the way to full implementation of human rights for all LGBT Indians.

The most interesting finding for me is that the propaganda of the far-right (Hindutva nationalists) that the concept of "LGBT" is alien to "Hindu"/Indian culture is self-contradictory and false. The Hindu religions, in fact, seem to embrace and celebrate all human gender/sexual identities. In a hilarious reversal of roles, the Hindutva nationalists are championing the position of the Abrahamic religions (which they so clearly detest!) and the British colonialists. Oh well, the infinite ironies of India never fail to astound me! :D I have analyzed the issue from a dispassionate standpoint. Please read it with an open mind (no offence is intended) and feel free to let me know your comments. I am always interested in constructive discussions.

Modern Science

The first thing I learned was that gender identity and sexual identity are different notions but are closely related. Gender identity refers to whether people perceive themselves as male, female, or neither, irrespective of their biological sex. Sexual identity (or sexual orientation) refers to which sex a person is romantically/sexually attracted to and may want to marry. Apart from L-G-B-T, many other types of gender/sexual identities are recognized by scientists. Some other terms used include asexual, pansexual, polysexual, intersexual, and androgyne. Over the last few decades, scientific research has established that sexual/gender identity is not a conscious choice, but an integral part of a person's biology and psychology. What is indeed a choice is whether they choose to express their gender/sexual identity and live openly without a fear of persecution.

While science still does not know the exact causality, it is believed that alternate gender/sexual identities arise due to a complex combination of genetic (phenotypic traits), pre-natal biological (during foetal development), and environmental factors (during early brain development). But there are also fascinating studies that show how even identical twins who were brought up in the same social environment could have different gender/sexual identities, suggesting that gene expression (not just the genetic code) might also play a significant role. Furthermore, non-heterosexual behaviors have been scientifically documented in many other animal species, including our fellow great apes and other mammals, debunking the notion that homosexuality and bisexuality are somehow "unnatural". Nevertheless, the evolutionary role of homosexuality and bisexuality in human sociology, psychology and biology is an active research topic, and there are already interesting theories and findings.

The scientific consensus is that alternate sexual/gender identities are not a psychological disease or disorder. Hence, the so-called "reparative therapies" that purport to "cure" alternate gender/sexual identities are simply bogus, not to mention inhumane since an LGBT person will be unable to change their gender/sexual identity. There are some "studies" (now debunked) that seemed to show that some people could be converted from "gay" to "straight" or vice versa. However, scientists now consider such people to be bisexual, who might have varying levels of attraction to either gender/sex. Furthermore, the current scientific consensus is that sexuality exists in a continuum between full heterosexuality and full homosexuality, and not in binaries. The Kinsey scale is one measure that is often used to quantify this. It has a weird scale of 0 to 6 though! :)

Modern Rule of Law

I have always considered sexual/gender identity to be integral to a person's notion of self, which means it should be protected by the most important of human rights--the right to life, liberty, and self-security. Unsurprisingly, the UN agrees with this view. In their landmark Yogyakarta declarations of 2006, the UN mandated that all member nations should protect free expression of sexual/gender identity as an inalienable human right. The Supreme Court verdict on gender identity references both the Yogyakarta declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I read the entire verdict and was quite heartened!).

Strangely, the SC sidestepped the issue of sexual orientation, although it might review it in the future. I think it would be hypocritical and contradictory to its own judgement if the SC does not recognize sexual orientation too as a part of human rights (along with gender identity). The verdict also references numerous Indian cultural sources that explain how alternate gender/sexual identities were viewed in Indian culture before the imposition of Victorian-era British "morality" (inspired by Abrahamic religious dogma) during their colonial rule over India . Thus, while Britain today accepts that the diversity seen in human gender/sexual identities as normal and has accorded full legal equality to "LGBT" people (including apparently the right to marry), many Indians, particularly the far-right Hindutva nationalists, are still stuck with the regressive 1800s mindset imposed by the British! Oh, sweet irony! :D

Views of Tamil Culture

One of the most surprising finds for me was this post by a gender rights activist and scholar from Madurai. In his research, he found that there are 26 different gender/sexual identities recognized and named in Tamil literature--yes, 26! :O It is interesting to me that the complexities of human gender/sexual identities have been appreciated in Tamil culture, which is often considered conservative. As per his findings, Tamil literature in general displays significant nuance and tolerance towards various gender/sexual identities. No wonder then that Tamil Nadu has been a pioneer in recognizing the rights of people with alternate gender identities for nearly a decade now. Even the SC verdict acknowledged this. Strangely, alternate sexual identities have not been addressed legally though.

Views of the Major Hindu Religions

Another surprising find was this post by a Vaishnavite organization. Vaishnavism is a monotheistic Hindu religion (often considered conservative). In their analysis, they explain how many of the major Hindu religions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Vedic Brahminism, and Advaita Vedantism) celebrate stories about Hindu deities that have "homosexual", "bisexual", and "transgender" tendencies, if not outright identities. They provide anecdotes from various Indian literature, particularly the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, and the Ramayana. Of course, I did verify their examples with some other sources before believing what I read. :) Here are a few examples that struck me as prominent:

- Krishna, a popular male incarnation of Vishnu, transforms himself into a woman to wed the near-death warrior Aravan for a day to fulfil Aravan's prayer before he dies. This act of "divine benevolence" is celebrated anually by "trans" people at the Koovagam festival in Tamil Nadu. Krishna also acknowledges and enjoys his role as the supreme man of devotion and attraction for not just the female cowherds, but also his "trans" and "gay" devotees (a "gay icon", basically; Krishna somehow gets to be everyone's icon! :D).

- Ayyappan, a popular male deity worshipped by some celibate south Indian men, is the son of two male deities: Shiva and Vishnu (albeit in his female form).

- Karthikeya, also known as Skanda or Murugan, a male deity popularly worshipped by Tamils was born to two male deities: Shiva and Agni. Parvati, Shiva's consort, is not involved!

- Aruna, a male deity and the charioteer of another male deity, Surya, transforms himself into a woman to embrace the male deity Indra, and later, Surya himself.

- Varuna and Mitra, two important male Vedic deities, are almost always described as an inseparable couple. Vedic nature deities are popular in Vedic Brahminism (a polytheistic Hindu religion) but not so much in the monotheistic (duh!) Hindu religions or even the monistic Hindu religion of Advaita Vedantism. 

- Bhagiratha, a revered ancestor of Rama (another popular incarnation of Vishnu) was born to two female consorts of a deceased king thanks to a boon to the widows from Shiva.

Of course, none of these anecdotes and observations are meant to ridicule Hindu literature or offend practicing Hindus (no matter what their Hindu religion). Rather, they underscore the sophistication displayed by Indian literature towards the whole gamut of human gender/sexual identities. However, as is often the case with the Hindu religions, different scriptures contradict each other a lot! :D For example, the Manu Smriti proscribes alternate sexual identities, and even lists punishments for expressions of alternate sexual identities (although this piece of literature has largely been discredited since it praises caste discrimination and violence against atheists). The interesting thing with the Hindu religions is that no one piece of literature is considered authoritative by all Hindus. All in all, homo/bi/trans phobias are decidedly incompatible with the major Hindu religions. In fact, the Hindu religions are the only major extant world religions that celebrate gender/sexual diversity!

Other Hindu Religions and Culture

Both Jainism (an atheistic Hindu religion) and Sikhism (a monotheistic Hindu religion) generally ignore the issue of gender/sexual identity altogether, which could be interpreted either way. But they do not explicitly proscibe alternate gender/sexual identities. The view of Buddhism (another atheistic Hindu religion) is more varied. While early Buddhism seemed to consider any form of sexual expression as unhelpful, different sects of Buddhism approach this issue differently. Some sects explicitly brand alternate gender/sexual identities as a "delusion", while some others consider it as a non-issue.

Anyway, while the above list chronicles anecdotes from Hindu literature and general positions of the various Hindu religions, ancient Sanskrit secular literature as well as governance practice generally seem to have accorded positive or neutral recognition to alternate gender/sexual identities. For example, the Kamashastra, a treatise on love and sex, apparently includes descriptions of homosexuality as well as bisexuality without any judgement (I cannot attest to this since I have not read that document! :D). And homosexual and bisexual acts are openly depicted in Indian paintings, poetry, and more prominently, temple architecture, particularly at Khajuraho and, apparently, at Konark too.

Influence of Abrahamic Religions

The fortunes of India's LGBT community started to plummet seriously with the invasions of the Indian subcontinent by empires that followed Islam (a monotheistic Abrahamic religion). Islamic rule resulted in a general suppression of alternate human gender/sexual identities, in accordance with Islamic literature. Interestingly, under Mughal rule, gender identity and sexual identity were decoupled. Individuals with "trans" gender identities (the "T" in LGBT) were protected and even used as guards for the quarters of the royal consorts and concubines. However, people with alternate sexual identities (particularly, homosexuality) were persecuted. British colonial rule decimated whatever tolerance remained in India for the entire LGBT community, including the trans community. And this was in accordance with the literature of Christianity (another monotheistic Abrahamic religion).

Thus, a major conclusion of my analysis is that Hindu/Indian religions/culture and Tamil culture tolerated (in fact, even celebrated!) all human gender/sexual identities, while the Abrahamic religions (particularly Christianity and Islam) still seek to deny their human rights (mostly). This might sound like a "communal" conclusion (to use the language of the hypocritical left and center in India), but this is what the evidence suggests. As you probably know from my other blog posts, I am not afraid of stating the truth. :) Personally, I think that the Abrahamic religions are inevitably going to "evolve" over the next few decades to accommodate the humanity of the LGBT community. From what I can see, "reform" movements are already raging on in many sects of Christianity, particularly in Europe and the US. I think it is likely that the various sects of Islam will also start undergoing major reformations on this issue in the near future.

Conclusion

Overall, I think it is high time for the left and center in India grow out of their hypocrisy and champion the human rights of Indians with different sexual/gender identities, in accordance with their stated commitment to secular humanist values. Similarly, I think it is high time for the right (the Hindutva nationalists) to realize that they are basically taking the outdated position of the Abrahamic religions (which, ironically, they detest!) instead of their stated commitment to "Hindu" culture. So, I do wonder where the Sangh Parivar get their definition of "Hindu" culture from because it is clearly not from Hindu literature! Like I said, India's infinite ironies! :D

It is also an interesting contrast that while Western democracies try to accommodate the human rights of the LGBT community by rejecting parts of their own culture (particularly the dogma of the Abrahamic religion of Christianity), India tries to accommodate their human rights by re-embracing parts of its own culture (the Hindu religions) that predates Abrahamic influence. And I am not alone--the Supreme Court largely used the same line of reasoning.

J&K Part 3: Potential "FAQs" About My Opinions

Note: This is part 3 of a 3-part series about the J&K dispute. In Part 1, I presented an unbiased history of the J&K conflict, followed by my proposed roadmap for a peaceful and permanent resolution, and my rebuttals to the rationalizations given in India for disallowing a plebiscite in J&K. In Part 2, I presented my detailed rebuttal of one of the most common rationalizations - that a potential exit of (parts of) J&K from the Union of India will somehow lead to a civil war and a Balkanization of India. In this post, I list some questions that I anticipate from people regarding the opinions that I have expressed on my blog. Of course, I might answer questions or comments from readers otherwise too.

FAQs:

1. Is this not sedition against the Republic of India?
No. I am exercising my freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution to start a conversation. I opine that India's approach to the J&K dispute has hitherto been inhumane. I am not advocating any political uprising or movement against India. I am merely stating facts and a constructive opinion on how we can resolve an intractable political dispute that has cost India dearly in terms of human lives. And time. And Rupees!

2. Wait, are you not an Indian?
Haha, of course, I am. No one except me (or the Supreme Court of India) has the right to declare otherwise. :) Being an Indian, it pains me to see my country on the wrong side of history.

3. Do you realize that you have an "un-Indian" opinion?
I disagree. I believe my opinion is the "most truly Indian" of any opinion on J&K. How so, you ask? Think for a moment of what Gandhi, Vivekananda, Buddha, Ambedkar, and Mother Teresa would have done about J&K. Yeah, I realize this sounds kinda like the "what would Jesus do" position among liberal Christians the US, but whatever! I detest the hypocrisy of the left and center as well as the jingoism of the right in India. I am inspired by these true icons of India, and I am not afraid of stating the truth. :)

4. Have you been brainwashed by Americans?
LOL. No. Like I said, my opinion is "most truly Indian", and it is based solely on my readings, my analysis, and my interactions with people with alternative viewpoints. Also, I do not support any punitive measures against India with respect to the J&K dispute.

5. Are you pro-Pakistan or an ISI agent or supporter of Islamist terrorists?
ROFL. No. But I do think that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is on a course to self-destruct. And that the ISI is a glorified criminal syndicate. And the Islamist terrorists are inhuman war criminals who should either surrender to justice or get killed in combat.

6. Are you a Marxist or some other radical like Arundhati Roy?
LMAO. No. I think communism, Marxism or otherwise, is a failed ideology that should be confined to the dustbin of history. And I think Arundhati Roy is a good writer, but that's all about her. But since Prashant Bhushan is from the AAP, I am beginning to be amused when people give him grief! Just kidding. :D

7. What is your political alignment in Indian politics?
Full disclosure: I have found that a majority of my policy preferences coincide with those of the BJP, especially that of the Vajpayee administration (surprised?). In fact, long ago, I have been to a BJP meeting in Chennai to understand them better. However, their response to the Gujarat riots of 2002 have changed my view of the BJP. I consider myself "non-aligned" politically. My opinions on a range of issues are sort of a hybrid of the BJP and the Congress (this is the case for most of my friends), and many not espoused by any major party, especially this one about how to resolve the J&K dispute. :)

8. Do you realize that you might be intimidated by the far right, possibly including death threats?
Perhaps, yes. But I certainly hope not, because it would be sad. Most of my opinions are based on historical facts and ground reality as well as the influence of some of the people that the Indian far right claims to "champion". In fact, I agree with Mahatma Gandhi that the claims of the Sangh Parivar to represent "true Hindu culture" mostly ring hollow, primarily due their virulent anti-non-Hindu violence - none of the Hindu religions condone this. But then, there is also this large intersection of my policy views with that of the BJP. Oh, the irony! :)

9. Separatism in Punjab was successfully resolved. India can do the same in J&K.
This argument is another key piece of the "walls of denial and delusion" that I mentioned before. I have already addressed Punjab's case in part 2. The J&K conflict is older than the Republic of India. And the evidence has always been overwhelmingly clear - most of the Muslim-majority of J&K has not accepted themselves as Indians. They view India-controlled democracy as a sham, since the separatists are not allowed to contest elections under the Indian constitution. They view J&K as a "colony under occupation by a colonial power", much like how Palestinians view Israel (this comparison is widespread in Kashmir Valley). Their viewpoint makes me cringe as an Indian, especially given India's own history with fighting brutal colonial oppression by Britain. Indians definitely need to do a lot of soul searching, and I certainly hope I am helping with that.

10. Why do you care about J&K?
Honestly, I don't really care, at least not much! :) I am just presenting the facts followed by my opinion on the J&K dispute, from a dispassionate, and somewhat objective standpoint. Of course, I do seriously care about my country respecting the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. So, in this sense, I care about the J&K dispute since it is a conspicuous blot on India's democracy. I have written a similar post about why Telangana's should get statehood within India a few years ago, and criticized India's silence on Lankan human rights violations.

11. Most of this will never work, especially the constitutional amendments; are you delusional?
See point 10 above. I don't have any "vested interest" in J&K's secession. And expressing an opinion is not a delusion! :)

12. Are you not insulting the sacrifices of the Indian armed forces?
Great question. I do not agree. The hallmark of a good soldier is obedience to higher authority. And the hallmark of a good army (armed forces) is obedience to the civilian government. In that sense, the Indian armed forces are among the most professional and ethical in the world, and I highly respect that. The decisions made on J&K so far by India are not the fault of the armed forces. I find it sad that so many soldiers have lost their lives, and so many families have lost their loved ones due to the misguided policies of the civilian governments. Thus, solving this dispute is, in fact, a tribute to the Indian armed forces. Having said that, I do not think we can absolve certain individual officers or soldiers against whom there is sufficient evidence from having to face justice for war crimes and other human rights violations.

13. Human rights violations in J&K are just Pakistani propaganda.
This argument is another key piece of the "walls of denial and delusion" among Indians. Frankly, this is the only argument I find offensive. Yes, Pakistan does engage in a lot of propaganda, both internally and at international fora. But it did not originate from a vacuum. Credible human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN have documented numerous serious violations over many years, including some that amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. These include, like I said before, abduction and enforced disappearances, rape and gang rape, illegal imprisonment and torture, murders in the form of fake encounters, and murders of children during street uprisings. If you are an Indian, please pause for a moment and contemplate this question - What will your worldview be if such crimes happened in your neighborhood, committed by, say, British or American soldiers?. This has been going on in J&K for decades now. The perpetrators include Indian armed forces and politicians, Pakistani armed forces and politicians, and Pakistan-sponsored Islamist terrorists. I think all of them need to face justice. My opinion is not new; I have the same opinion about the violation of Tamils' human rights by Lanka's armed forces and politicians. Having said that, if the parties to the dispute - India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri separatists - collectively agree not to pursue war crimes charges against the others, I am okay with it somewhat. But personally, I still find it offensive that war criminals can be given a free pass.

14. What if an independent Kashmir Valley is later occupied by Pakistan or China or Islamists?
Again, I don't really care about the fate of any region of J&K that elects to opt out of the Union of India. Heck, I don't care even if they are enslaved by aliens from outer space (okay, aliens from outer space does sound worrying :D). And if there is a clear and immediate threat to India's security, action should be taken. Or, if the UN authorizes a humanitarian intervention, India can participate in a multilateral effort to restore peace, upon the request of their elected government. Deja vu? :) Yeah, maybe I will write another post about it circa 2050! :D

15. How about a "reunification" of India and Pakistan?
I disagree. I think reunification with Pakistan is a bad idea, no matter how it is sugar-coated. I will definitely vote against reunification, if it comes to referendum later in the future. Pakistan has a toxic "hate infrastructure" that thrives on dehumanization of the "other". Reunification would basically be like inviting intractable instability to all of India.

16. Why do you give such a big role to the UN and its organizations?
Ask Nehru; he started it. :) But on a serious note, I think the UN is best suited to carry out the roles I have outlined since it is neutral and impartial, and both India and Pakistan respect the UN (at least on paper). More generally, I think the UN is the best hope we have as a species to achieve true world peace and a single global federal government for all humanity. Thus, it is important to empower the various organizations of the UN more, and resort to multilateral decisions that respect international law rather than illegal unilateral actions.

17. Why are you so harsh on Indian policy?
It is not my intention to be harsh - just truthful. :)

18. Criticizing Indian policies while ignoring Pakistani, American, and Chinese policies is hypocrisy.
No, it is not. I am an Indian, not a Pakistani, American, or Chinese. Nor do their affairs particularly interest me. I leave it to my Pakistani friends to critique Pakistani policies. And my American friends to critique American policies. And my Chinese friends to critique Chinese policies... oh wait, never mind! :D

19. What would you vote, if you were a Muslim Kashmiri?
If I were a Muslim Kashmiri, I would definitely vote to become a state of the Union of India. Why? Independence would mean being a tiny, potentially unviable landlocked country hemmed in by 3 nuclear powers, and possibly becoming a "client state" of one of them. Pakistan is imploding thanks to the frankenstein it created. In contrast, India is a de jure and de facto secular liberal democracy. The higher judiciary never shies away from taking on the executive. India's celebration of diversity and inclusiveness has no parallels in human history. Indeed, I think India is a future wellspring of great opportunities.

20. Huh, J&K is already a part of India! What was the point of all this then?
There is world of difference between being forced into a Union, and electing to be part of a Union. My purpose is to stir your thinking about the true history of the J&K dispute, and discuss my ideas for resolving it. And to shatter the walls of denial and delusion about J&K created in the minds of many of my compatriots by jingoistic propaganda! :)

Note: Dedicated to the memory of late Prof. Veeraraghavan, a great man who got me interested in thinking and writing about constitutional, humanitarian, international issues.

J&K Part 2: Why a Potential J&K Exit will NOT "Balkanize" India

Note: This is part 2 of a 3-part series about the J&K dispute. In Part 1, I presented an unbiased history of the J&K conflict, followed by my proposed roadmap for a peaceful and permanent resolution, and my rebuttals to the rationalizations given in India for disallowing a plebiscite in J&K. In this post, I present my detailed rebuttal of one of the most common rationalizations that some Indians assume is "gospel truth" - that a potential exit of (parts of) J&K from the Union of India will somehow lead to a civil war and a "Balkanization" of India, a la Yugoslavia. I must concede that I used to subscribe to this view earlier. But after more careful analysis, I have come to the conclusion that this common rationalization (due mostly to irrational fear, ironically) mostly rings hollow! Of course, my analysis is of a purely hypothetical scenario where each state of India decides whether it should stay within the Union after the potential exit of (parts of) J&K. My opinion is based partially on anecdotal and electoral evidence. I am not encouraging any separatism or uprising, but merely opining about a "what-if" scenario.

Caution: Following the stifling seriousness of Part 1, I have decided to humor myself by peppering this post with subtle (and not-so subtle) sarcastic and edgy humor! I am aware that not everyone laughs at my jokes; so feel free to take offense, and an advanced apology. :D

India's Underlying "Hindu" Cultural Fabric

For two-thirds of a century, India has held together as one republic in spite of its incredible diversity, surprising the entire world. How did it achieve this remarkable feat? Clearly, India is not a "police state" - our police is simply too incompetent (largely speaking)! :D Most parts of India have little to no presence of the armed forces. So, what else could be the reason? I contend that, apart from its commitment to secular liberal democracy, it is India's underlying "Hindu cultural fabric" that creates a sense of cultural and religious "oneness". No, I do not consider myself a Hindutva nationalist. So, I encourage you to read through this reasoning patiently. Most of the Muslim-majority areas of the Indian subcontinent are outside of India already (Pakistan and Bangladesh). Within India, the most serious extant separatist conflicts are in J&K (Muslim-majority), Nagaland, and Mizoram (both Christian-majority). Granted, the conflicts in the north-east are not about religion per se, but the fact still stays. Assam (Hindu majority) might count as an exception, owing to its long history of independence from historical "pan-Indian" empires (see point 4 from the rebuttals in Part 1). I will address Assam in more detail shortly. Of course, this argument does not mean that non-Hindus are not part of the fabric of India! Rather, it means that Mahatma Gandhi's interpretation of pluralistic and monistic Hindu (read Advaita Vedantic) cultural values are the foundation of the Republic of India's "secularism". India's interpretation of secularism stands in stark contrast with the European/American meaning of secularism, viz., strict separation of religion from state affairs. This difference often invites ridicule from Western intellectuals, but seems to work for India. Most practicing Indian Hindus I know (primarily from the religions of Smartism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Vaishnavism) do at some level consider the entire landmass of India - from Amarnath (J&K) to Kanyakumari (TN), and from Somnath (Gujarat) to Kamakhya (Assam) - as their "motherland, fatherland, and holy land" (to use the the words of the Hindutva nationalist, Savarkar). In this sense, I contend that India is both a "Hindu" country and a "secular" country (thanks to Gandhian Advaita Vedantism), both of which have been, are, and will be, instrumental in preserving its unity and integrity.

Let us consider all the states of India. I think it is laughable to imagine that the Hindi "heartland" states (UP, Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal, and Uttarakhand) would want to secede from India; so I ignore them. That leaves us with two classes of potential new demands for separatism - the north-eastern states, and the "regional powerhouse" states.

North-eastern States: Assam

From anecdotal evidence, it appears that popular support for separatism in Assam is indeed low, in sharp contrast to (parts of) J&K. The violent separatist militancy has all but died down, and even among the political separatists, factionalism and infighting has dissolved any unified anti-India stance. Assam's basic problem is this - it is not a monolithic entity; it has numerous internal ethno-linguistic tensions. However, most of the tribes and groups are pro-India. Thus, the threat of a post-secession civil war within Assam will likely make it stick to the Union of India, even if it comes to a vote.

North-eastern States: Others

I suspect that Nagaland and Mizoram would indeed demand their own plebiscites if (a part of) J&K exits the Union of India, and I think that is fair to grant them that. And I also suspect that both of them will vote to exit the Union of India. Honestly, I think this is an insignificant loss to the Union. :) I think so, not because their economies and populations are tiny or because most Indians would probably not be able to point them out on a map of India (which is probably mostly true :D), but because I do not know any Nagas or Mizos in any of the sciences, arts, sports, politics, etc., who have contributed significantly or memorably to India. Putting it bluntly, even if they exit, they might not be "missed" by most Indians. I apologize if this sounds offensive, but this is the truth (at least for me, and likely for most Indians). Of course, I recognize that my view may not be the most common on this point, and you can blame my political incorrectness or even ignorance. Of course, if they vote to stay in the Union, I would consider them the same as any other other state. With respect to Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal, Sikkim, and Meghalaya, I think they would all vote to stay within the Union, owing to the existential threats they face from China and illegal immigration from Bangladesh and Nepal.

Regional Powerhouses: Tamil Nadu

Next up is the old nemesis of the Hindi nationalists - Tamil Nadu! :D Periyar and the DMK used to advocate separatism based on linguistic and racial chauvinism early on after independence from Britain, but they have been successfully resolved within the framework of Indian democracy. Why? I think the "separatism" in TN was merely a political game to rein in the Hindi nationalists, who live in this bubble that India and Hindustan are identical, while the evidence says that less than half of India's population is Hindustani! Nothing scares the Hindi nationalists more than a bit of good old Tamil "separatism" (and Bengali too, if I may add)! :D On a serious note, I think TN's peaceful and complete integration with the Republic of India is one of the most under-appreciated success stories of democracy in the world. Many Western-style democracies themselves have failed here, e.g., Spain, and Turkey. Owing to crucial role of the large Indian market in Tamil Nadu's economy, and the large Tamil population in India outside of TN, I think the chance of TN separating is low, even if it does come to a vote. And if this is not reason enough, the real prospect of a catastrophic post-secession war with a Chinese-armed Lanka will almost certainly deter Tamil politicians from seeking to exit the Union of India. Most of them are from a thespian background anyway - they excel at political drama, and will likely flounder in a real war! :D

Regional Powerhouses: Punjab

Next, let us consider Punjab - a state that has witnessed brutal separatist violence in the past, but has put it behind successfully. Similar to TN, I think the (re)integration of Punjab is another great success story of democracy. Notwithstanding the attempts of the Hindutva groups to label Sikhs as being within the "Hindu fold", I am not confident that Punjab will opt to stay within the Union, if it comes to a vote. But I do think that the unfortunate but powerful memory of the anti-Sikh violence of 1984 will play a strong role in their decision. Punjab, of course, is economically viable as an independent country, but secession will come at a great cost for its (and the rest of India's) society and economy. There are many Punjabis in India outside of Punjab, including many mixed-marriage families. The rest of India is Punjab's largest "export market", which it could potentially lose. Since it is landlocked, an independent Punjab might have to depend more on Pakistan, which is not palatable due to its partition-related historical baggage. As for India, it will lose a major source of its agricultural produce. Not to mention controversial humor. :D But on a serious note, personally, I would be saddened if Punjab exits the Union.

Regional Powerhouses: Others

Again, I think similar arguments apply to most of the other regional powerhouses - Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Bengal, Andhra, and Kerala as well as the significantly poorer Odisha and Telangana. None of these states have had a history of separatist tendencies. All of these are Hindu-majority states. And they stand to lose a lot economically and socially if they secede from the Union of India. For example, the rich industrial and service-driven economies of Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Karnataka are highly integrated with the rest of India, and will likely collapse if they secede. The economies of Odisha, Bengal, and Telangana (along with Bihar and UP) are heavily dependent on migration of their workers to the other states of India for employment. Kerala and Andhra are sort of a mix of both, but they have large, vulnerable expatriate populations in the Middle East ("ungle in the gelf" anyone? :D) and US (been to the "Visa" Balaji temple?). Without the muscle of a unified Indian foreign policy, they will likely find it hard to confront those countries. Thus, I suspect all these states will probably not even want a vote! The last state left is Goa, which of course, fought the Portuguese to join India, and is unlikely to exit. We are left with tiny union territories, none of which have any inklings of separatism.

All in all, I think the potential loss of Punjab will probably be the only major loss to the Union of India, if (parts of) J&K vote to secede, and a plebiscite is held in all states. Nevertheless, due to the economic, social, political, and religious reasons I outlined above, I think that the rebooted Union of India, following the exit of those states, will probably be stronger and more united than ever before! Or not. :) The regional powerhouses (maybe even Bihar) might demand more autonomy from New Delhi, but still within the Union. As such, we are already seeing this "regionalization", or "decentralization" of Indian politics - a trend that some consider as being healthy for India's federal setup (I concur), while others consider as the warning signs of a break up, a la USSR. This trend, of course, is unrelated to the J&K dispute. A future "Union of Indian Socialist Republics (UISR)", or "United States of India (USI)", perhaps? LOL, no, I am fine with "Republic of India". Another blog post then, circa 2050. :)

If you are an Indian, feel free to let me know whether you think my analysis of your state's possible outcome is accurate (especially, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Punjab). I am always interested in hearing new perspectives! :)

J&K Part 1: Why J&K Should Get a Plebiscite and My Roadmap

Note: This post is the first of a marathon 3-part series on the J&K dispute (yeah, quite a topic I've chosen for my "comeback post" on Blogger!). In this post, I collect in one place an objective record of J&K's recent history, and a layout of the current majority alignment in different regions of J&K. I then discuss my roadmap for a comprehensive and just resolution of the dispute, and the most common rationalizations about the J&K dispute that Indians living in denial use, along with my rebuttal to each. Part 2 addresses one specific but popular rationalization that is of some serious concern. In it, I argue why a potential J&K exit from the Union of India will most likely not lead to a "Balkanization" of India as feared by many Indians. Part 3 lists some "FAQs" that I anticipate from people regarding the opinions that I express here. Of course, I might answer questions or comments from readers otherwise too.

My purpose in these posts is to honestly, objectively, and dispassionately analyze the J&K dispute from a neutral perspective, not to inflame passions. I have simply applied the humanist principles that have helped resolve similar (and worse) disputes and atrocities around the world successfully over the last century, while the J&K dispute festered on. I invite informed discussions, questions, and even criticism. I think us Indians, especially the youth - the future of India, need to start approaching the J&K dispute from a rationalist and humanist perspective, and not be swayed by the jingoistic propaganda of the right, left, and center in India that has plagued, and continues to limit the thinking of, our previous generations. So, please read with an open mind and do not spew hate.

A Brief History of J&K:

This is a distilled chronological list of historical facts about J&K without the propaganda that is spread by India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri separatists. Of course, I am neither a historian nor an expert on J&K. I have distilled these from multiple sources that are widely considered credible, especially the United Nations, and human rights organizations.

1. Pre-Partition Kingdoms and Religious Pluralism in J&K
The area of J&K has seen its fair share of kingdoms and religions rise and fall - Hindu, Greek, Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, and British. Religious pluralism has always been a part of J&K culture.

2. Religion-based Partition of British-ruled India
Due to Jinnah's two-nation theory, with the agreement of Nehru and Gandhi, British-ruled India was to be bifurcated to give rise to a Muslim-majority Pakistan, incorporating Muslim-majority British-ruled provinces. The so-called "princely states", i.e., provinces ruled by kings subservient to the British had the option of choosing to join either Pakistan or the new India. J&K, at the time of partition, was ruled by a Hindu king, but had a majority (three-fourths) Muslim population. Popular uprisings broke out in parts of J&K against the king demanding accession to Pakistan. In this sense, J&K was the mirror image of Hyderabad, which saw popular uprisings by the majority Hindu population against the Muslim king demanding accession to India.

3. Popular Rebellion and Tribal Invasion from Pakistan
While the king of J&K was still contemplating his decision, Pashtun tribal militias from north-west Pakistan, possibly, mercenaries aided discreetly by Pakistan, invaded J&K, and in collusion with local anti-royal rebels, occupied many districts of the kingdom. They managed to move quickly through J&K since they enjoyed popular support among most Muslims. The king panicked and sought help from India to crush the rebellion and "invasion".

4. J&K's Dubious Conditional Accession to the Union of India
Upon the advice of Mountbatten, the king signed an Instrument of Accession bringing his kingdom under the dominion of India. However, both Mountbatten and Nehru promised the king that India will hold a plebiscite in J&K to determine the ultimate political status of J&K after the Indian armed forces repel the invaders and crush the rebellion.

5. First India-Pakistan War over J&K's Status
Pakistan was caught unawares, and legitimately, cried foul. Since the king had signed a "standstill agreement" with Pakistan to buy time while he contemplated his decision on J&K's status, Pakistan contended that his sudden accession to India was illegal and made under duress. And since the accession went against the wishes of the majority Muslim population, it was also untenable. The Indian and Pakistani armies fought the First Kashmir War and India largely prevailed.

6. Resolutions of the United Nations and Ceasefire
Both India and Pakistan requested the United Nations to mediate and resolve the J&K dispute. A ceasefire was reached thanks to UN resolutions and the UN mandated that a plebiscite be held in all of J&K to ascertain its political future. Nehru himself requested the UN to organize the plebiscite. The UN laid a pre-condition that J&K must be demilitarized by both India and Pakistan. However, technical differences about the interpretations of the resolutions meant that neither countries fulfilled their pledge, leading to a deadlock. Essentially, both India and Pakistan are equally culpable for the stalemate in J&K.

7. India's Backtracking on J&K's Right to Self-Determination
Eventually, India simply backtracked on its pledge to the king and people of J&K about organizing a plebiscite, contending that Pakistan refused to demilitarize. Pakistan, on its part, blamed India for refusing to demilitarize. India's denial of a plebiscite is unequivocally a realpolitik-based double cross that went against the wishes of the majority-Muslim population of J&K. As for Hyderabad, India simply invaded it and overthrew the Muslim king to annex the province in a nod to the support of the majority-Hindu population.

8. India's Assimilation of J&K, Article 370, and International View
Article 370 was added to India's constitution to guarantee a "special" status and some degree of autonomy to J&K within the Union. For example, India's parliament has fewer powers over J&K than all other states, the Supreme Court of India does not have full jurisdiction over J&K, J&K has its own official flag, non-J&K citizens of India have fewer rights in J&K than locals, etc. For the next 4 decades, India tried to assimilate the population of J&K, with limited success. The Muslim majority of J&K has consistently maintained its anti-India stance. Pakistan, on its part, has consistently raised the J&K dispute at all international fora.

9. Pakistan-sponsored Armed Separatist Violence
Following a rigged election in the late 1980s, and the general failure of India-controlled democracy in J&K, popular discontent among the Muslim majority boiled over into a full-fledged separatist rebellion against India. With moral, diplomatic, economic, and armed support from Pakistan, violent militant groups emerged and started fighting against the elements of Indian state power - the police, the politicians, the armed forces, etc.

10. India's Militarization, Human Rights Violations, and Jingoism
India responded to the rebellion with an iron fist - a brutal, large-scale militarization of Kashmir Valley, and some other parts of J&K in the 1990s. Indian armed forces, particularly the Indian Army, were tasked with crushing the militant separatism. Human rights organizations have documented widespread violations of human rights, by both the Indian armed forces and the militant separatists. Crimes of the Indian armed forces that have been documented include abduction and enforced disappearances, rape and gang rape, illegal imprisonment and torture, murders in the form of fake encounters, and murders of children during street uprisings. Coincidentally, India's economy was in the doldrums due to the decades of failed socialist policies of Nehru and Indira Gandhi. All this led to a meteoric rise of Hindutva-inspired politics in India. Far-right jingoism started to become popular, even among section of the intelligentsia. The J&K dispute provided a perfect excuse for the far-right politicians to bash Muslim-majority Pakistan and appease their base.

11. Pakistan-sponsored and Islamism-inspired Terrorism
A combination of the increasing frustration among the Muslims of J&K, the rise of Islamist-inspired politics in Pakistan, the freelancing ISI-trained Islamist militants who returned from Afghanistan, and the rise of Hindutva-inspired anti-Muslim violence in India decidedly gave an Islamist bent to Kashmiri separatism. From being an armed political uprising to achieve independence for J&K, it became a largely anti-India and anti-Hindu terrorist movement (I define "terrorism" as intimidation and murder of civilians by groups that aim to achieve political goals.) Most of the terrorist groups were funded and trained by the ISI and the Pakistani Army - a move that Pakistan will later come to regret. Of course, some separatists like the Hurriyat have remained non-violent and committed to negotiate a political resolution with both India and Pakistan.

12. Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus
The Islamist terrorist groups started a systematic campaign of intimidation to drive out non-Muslims, particularly Kashmiri Hindus, from the Kashmir Valley. This is unequivocally an act of ethnic cleansing.

13. Hindutva-inspired Religious Polarization in J&K
The ascendancy of Hindutva-based politics in India reached J&K as well. Pretty soon, Hindu and Sikh groups in Jammu became more vocal about their pro-India alignments, in contrast to the pro-independence or pro-Pakistan alignment of the majority of Muslims of Kashmir Valley. Even Buddhist groups in Ladakh became vocal about splitting from J&K to become a union territory or a state of the Union of India. Proposals from the Sangh Parivar (a collection of far-right Hindutva groups) to "trifurcate" the state of J&K were repeatedly rejected by successive governments of India.

14. Post-9/11 Anti-Islamism Backlash and Pakistan's Implosion
Soon after 9/11, Pakistan, pressured by the United States, started to systematically silence the Islamist terrorist groups that it had nurtured and harbored. Worldwide, Islamism gained prominence as a political ideology that is inimical to a liberal democracy and human rights. Pakistan has waged wars against some anti-US terrorist groups, but has left anti-India terrorists largely untouched. All this coincided with a steady decrease in separatist violence in J&K. But India has refused to do reduce its militarization of the Kashmir Valley. After the brutal 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, the world recognized Pakistan's role in sponsoring anti-India terrorism. In a twist of fate for Pakistan, it is now the country that is "most affected" by Islamist terrorism (in terms of number of civilians killed).

15. Current Status of J&K, and International View
The status quo in J&K is what it has been for decades. India refuses to hold the UN-sponsored plebiscite it promised to the people of J&K, and refuses to demilitarize J&K. Pakistan refuses to disarm the violent separatists and Islamist terrorists, and demilitarize J&K. The Pakistani establishment has lost credibility internationally due to its dithering on Islamist terrorists. India, on the other hand, is generally considered a "rising power", owing to its burgeoning economy and secular liberal democracy. Thus, most of the world no longer cares about the J&K dispute for fear of annoying India, and the people of J&K are effectively on their own again.

Major Regions of J&K and Majority Popular Alignments:
Obviously, J&K if not a monolithic entity. It is a patchwork of several regions, ethnic groups, languages, and religions. But, largely speaking, J&K is usually partitioned into 5 major regions. Within each region, there is enough evidence to predict what the majority alignment would be. They are as follows:

Under Indian Administration (technically, a quasi-legal occupation):
1. Kashmir Valley (epicenter of anti-India separatism; primarily pro-independence or pro-Pakistan)
2. Jammu (epicenter of separate-state sentiments within Indian-administered J&K; primarily pro-India)
3. Ladakh (significant separate-state sentiments; primarily pro-India)

Under Pakistani Occupation (technically, an illegal occupation):
4. Muzaffarabad Area (known as Azad Kashmir in Pakistan; primarily pro-Pakistan)
5. Gilgit-Baltistan (also known as Northern Areas in Pakistan; primarily pro-Pakistan)

Under Chinese Occupation (generally ignored in the J&K dispute, but technically, an illegal occupation):
6. Aksai Chin (largely uninhabited; alignments unknown)

My 10-Step Roadmap for a Just, Democratic Future of J&K:

1. Acceptance of the right to self-determination of the people of J&K by all parties to the dispute, namely, India, Pakistan, and J&K separatists.

2. Acceptance of the right to self-determination of different regions within J&K by all parties.

3. Amendments to their respective constitutions by elected representatives of India and Pakistan.

4. Simultaneous demilitarization from all regions of J&K by both India and Pakistan. Disarmament and surrender of armed separatists and terrorists sponsored by Pakistan.

5. United Nations-mandated interim neutral administration and peacekeeping force in J&K.

6. Legally binding commitment by all parties to adopt democratic rule of law, and respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the plebiscite, especially the freedom of expression and minority rights. Specifically, whoever administers Kashmir Valley must consent to the repatriation of Kashmiri Hindus.

7. Acceptance of the binding legal authority of the UN's International Court of Justice for arbitration in the event of any breach of agreement, or conflict between parties on issues such as land and water resources, currency and trade, etc.

8. UN-mandated and legally binding plebiscite in all regions of J&K with three options - independence, accession to India, and accession to Pakistan. Other creative options are also possible here, e.g., enhanced autonomy within India or Pakistan, joint sovereignty, etc., depending on proposals from the parties involved.

9. Acceptance and enforcement of the results of the plebiscite by all parties, including amendments to their constitutions. UN-mandated monitoring agency in all regions of J&K to oversee the enforcement for a few years.

10. Legally binding cooperation agreement among all parties to apprehend and surrender war criminals and other serious violators human rights (e.g., for torture, rape, murder, ethnic cleansing) - Islamist terrorists, officials of the armed forces, politicians, and civilian officials from both India and Pakistan - to face justice for their crimes against humanity at the UN's International Criminal Court.

Rebutting Indian Rationalizations for Occupation:

1. J&K was and is an "integral" part of the Republic of India
No, it was not, and it is not. Article 370 of the constitution of the Republic of India makes this clear. Also, see points 4, 6, 7, and 8 from the history.

2. J&K is historically Hindu, and hence, should belong in India.
Not true (see point 1 from history above). J&K has historically been religiously diverse, with the Hindu religions being one prominent part of its diversity. More generally, "historically X" argument generally does not carry much water. For example, the US does not submit to "historically Native American, so let us disempower all European and African Americans" narrative. Why then does India support Palestinian statehood, if as some Israelis argue, the entire land of Palestine was "historically Jewish"? Finally, consider India itself. Anthropological, archaeological, and linguistic evidence suggest that historically, north India was inhabited by Dravidians. So, should we disempower Indo-European speakers in north India? Ludicrous, is this not? :)

3. J&K is religiously diverse, and hence, should be in India.
Yes, J&K is religiously diverse. But that does not give India alone the right to decide J&K's status. But the regional religious diversity of J&K does necessitate a careful multi-region plebiscite, as I outlined above. The people of the each region need to decide their status.

4. J&K was always a part of historical India, religions aside.
Not true. If we look at India's history, it was a fragmented mess of warring kingdoms for most of its history (much like Europe). Only 4 true "pan-Indian" empires ever existed - Maurya, Gupta, Mughal, and British empires. Let's look at each. Under Maurya and Mughal rule, half of J&K, most of India's north-east, and most of present-day Tamil Nadu and Kerala were not in the empire. Most of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh were. So, why is Madurai a part of India but Kabul is not? :) Under Gupta rule, J&K as well as most of the Deccan plateau and east India were not in the empire. The British empire consolidated the entire Indian subcontinent under one rule. It also oversaw the partition of India, which has led to this mess. See points 1 and 2 from history. Thus, the "historical" argument is self-contradictory and invalid.

5. J&K will become an Islamist state if not in India.
If a region elects to exit the Union of India, their governance model is their business, subject to the UN-monitored pre-plebiscite agreements (see point 6 from my roadmap). Obviously, within the Union of India, an Islamist state is unacceptable.

6. Kashmiri Hindus might be persecuted in Kashmir Valley.
The cold truth is that no one can guarantee foolproof security for anyone anywhere. Did Muslims get foolproof security under India's democracy? No. Hindus under Bangladesh's? No. Tamils under Lanka's? No. Thus, it is hypocritical to expect a different standard for a future government that rules Kashmir Valley. That said, I think this is a key reason why point 6 of my roadmap is critical for peace in J&K.

7. An independent J&K will be economically unviable.
First, I think it is probably not true. Tourism, agriculture, mineral wealth, and hydroelectricity could very well be the economic engines of a viable, independent J&K. Second, there are dozens of UN member countries that are tinier than just Kashmir Valley. Third, if (parts of) J&K vote to secede from India, its economic viability is not India's business. Thus, this argument is both invalid and irrelevant.

8. Plebiscite in J&K will lead to a "Balkanization" of India.
This is perhaps the most serious argument - that India will somehow "disintegrate" into civil war like Yugoslavia, if J&K is allowed to secede. I think this argument is a lot hollower than it sounds, and I attack this in detail in Part 2.

Life of Pi: The Mystical Island

I just watched the movie Life of Pi. In one word, "beautiful"! It is a beautiful picturization of a heart-wrenching, but eventually uplifting story. It is a beautiful work of art that is surprisingly accurate in its portrayal of Indian culture, though it was born out of the work of a Western (French-Canadian) author, Yann Martel, and a Far Eastern (Chinese-Taiwanese) filmmaker, Ang Lee. Most of all, it is a beautiful rendition of the profoundly abstract Hindu (which literally means Indian, political correctness apart!) philosophy of monism, which happens to be the dominant Hindu/Indian religion today (more on this another time).

Of all the things I liked about the movie, my favorite was this seemingly perplexing scene that shows Pi on a mystical floating island. Many people seem to think that this scene was weird at best, and pointless at worst. I beg to differ, since my analysis of that scene shows that it is a beautiful allegory about Indian philosophy (in keeping with the theme of the whole story). This analysis was prompted by my discussion with my friend, Vijay, who saw the movie with me, and pointed out that the island was shaped like a human in a shot shown from afar. I thought it could be an allegorical reference to Vishnu, and after my analysis, it turns out to be much deeper than I thought. While my analysis is somewhat speculative (only Martel can state the exact meaning), I support my interpretation with ideas expressed in the story, and relevant Indian philosophical concepts (for the interested reader, I have put in links to Wikipedia articles).

1. Metaphor: The island floating on the Pacific ocean.
Meaning: Vishnu, floating on the cosmic ocean (this imagery was shown at the beginning of the story).

2. Metaphor: The seemingly surreal happenings on the island.
Meaning: Our reality, which is a "dream" in the mind of Vishnu (this was also mentioned at the beginning of the story).

3. Metaphor: The carnivorous algae on which the island floats.
Meaning: Sesha, the five-headed snake on which Vishnu rests.

4. Metaphor: The numerous meerkats.
Meaning: Human beings. I know, what an unflattering metaphor! Possibly, they were chosen for their semi-bipedalism, semi-intelligence, social living, or some combination of similar reasons.

5. Metaphor: The island supports life by day, and causes death by night, again and again.
Meaning: Samsara, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth - that which supports life, causes death, and that which causes death, supports life.

6. Metaphor: The meerkats live meaningless lives eating, running, and dying on the island, under the impression that this is all there is to reality.
Meaning: Maya / Avidya, the illusion about the false nature of reality, which ultimately arises due to ignorance, and causes people to be stuck in Samsara.

7. Metaphor: Pi realizes the true nature of the island, and recognizes its futility.
Meaning: Vidya / Sat / Chit, knowledge or consciousness of the ultimate truth, which dispels Maya, and enables one to achieve enlightenment and liberation.

8. Metaphor: Pi, recognizing the truth of the island, decides to leave it for good.
Meaning: Moksha / Nirvana, the ultimate liberation of one's self from Samsara, so as to attain union with Vishnu (in Vaishnavism, a monotheistic Hindu religion), or union with God (in Sikhism, another monotheistic Hindu religion), or attain supreme character (in Jainism, an atheistic Hindu religion), or to attain supreme serenity (in Buddhism, another atheistic Hindu religion), or union with the supreme oneness (in Advaita Vedantism/Smartism, a monistic Hindu religion). This constitutes the soteriology of the major Hindu/Indian religions.

The whole story is filled with many wonderful metaphors. And it is fascinating to me that the author managed to weave these complex concepts into the story so beautifully. It seems he must have diligently studied Indian philosophy. I should also note that some people have pointed out similarities to Abrahamic (Judaic/Christian/Islamic/Bahai, all monotheistic religions) mythology, particularly the resemblance to the Garden of Eden. More importantly, I think Pi's story is remarkably similar in spirit to the Book of Job - a pious man being subject to unfathomable trials by his God, and yet his faith is unimpeachable, and he eventually achieves salvation (the soteriology of the Abrahamic religions). This is quite possible, again in keeping with the multi-religious, and monistic theme of the story that aims to blend philosophies. It would be great if someone can refer me to a similar analysis as above from the perspective of Abrahamic, or even Chinese (Confucian/Tao) mythology or philosophy. If I ever happen to meet Martel, I hope to remember to ask him how accurate my interpretation of his allegory is (and why exactly he chose meerkats!).

So, are you an Atheist?

Once in a while, I am asked if I am an atheist, or if I "subscribe" to any religion. The answer I usually give is that I think of myself a "freethinker" that does not subscribe to sweeping labels like Hinduism or Christianity or Atheism or Agnosticism or whatever else (although "freethought" itself is sort of a label). In my view, such labels often represent an oversimplification of the matter at hand, simply because the reality is multidimensional and complex. When Gandhi was asked if he was a Hindu, he famously replied, "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew." While it is a politically correct answer, there is far more to it than that. It made me ponder what exactly constitutes subscribing to such labels.

It is clear to me now that there are at least 5 key aspects associated with such labels. Depending on the extent to which one aligns one's self with each of them, one align one's self with that particular label. The label could be a religion, an ideological system, a life-position, etc. These aspects are not completely disjoint though.

1. (Blind) Faith / Theology

This is probably the best known aspect of most religions - a theology, a (blind) faith in the notion of a supernatural being, a "God" or Gods. Often, it comes as a package deal with some rather fantastical claims and stories that are often unverifiable and unrepeatable. The best known examples are in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Bahai), some Hindu religions (Vaishnavism/Shaivism/Shaktism/Smartism) and some animistic/pagan/nature religions. To many people, they serve as allegories for a larger morality. But to many others, they are literal truths to be blindly accepted, even if they contradict scientific evidence, or even common sense logic. This is certainly not an aspect that I can subscribe to.

2. Philosophy / Spirituality

This aspect transcends traditional religions, and applies to labels like secularism, humanism, Marxism, etc. Simple things like 'live and let live', 'treat others as you would have them treat you', 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind', etc. constitute philosophy in my view. Most religions have rich philosophical systems, often shaped by their theology. The Hindu religions have several distinct philosophical systems that are based on ideas ranging from monotheism and monism to polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, hedonism, agnosticism and atheism. Some religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, and perhaps Taoism seem almost exclusively like just philosophies. Secularism and humanism are also powerful philosophies. Most people live out a complex mixture of such philosophies, shaped by their life experiences, and I am no different. In that sense, I too am a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Confucian, a Gandhian, a secularist, an atheist, a humanist, etc.

3. Culture / Identity

Life would generally be boring without culture. No wonder then that most religious systems have been customized to the cultures of specific ethno-linguistic groups to reinforce a sense of identity. For example, Judaism and Shintoism are often called "ethnic religions", while some Hinduisms are often considered "lifestyles", rather than religions. Over the course of civilizations, this notion has become quite ingrained in most societies. Festivals and attire are mostly reflections of culture. This includes not just religious festivals but also secular festivals like Earth Day, Friendship Day, etc. In my view, they represent celebrations of life itself. And it is not necessary to subscribe to only one culture. I think assimilating good aspects of various cultures makes life richer. So, I have my own reasons to celebrate Diwali (symbolizing the primacy of knowledge over ignorance), Holi (symbolizing nature's amazing diversity), Pongal (celebrating agriculture's foundational role in civilization) , Christmas (celebrating the spirit of giving), Thanksgiving (reaffirming one's gratitude to family), and so on. And of course, who does not want to enjoy the holidays!

4. Politics

This is probably the aspect about religions that most people, including me, detest. Not so long ago, I wrote a post arguing why religions are essentially tools of politics and why they should be contained (Deus Caritas Est). Religions have always been, and still are, routinely used as tools of political division, subjugation and hatred. Early Islam's spread in West Asia and North Africa was essentially through imperialistic wars. Christianity's spread in Latin America occurred mainly in conjunction with colonial conquests. The Crusades were essentially a geopolitical tussle for hegemony. Religions remain potent political tools even today, whether it is in the geopolitics of nations, or communal pogroms faced by common people. There is a delicate distinction I draw between philosophy and politics. Imposing rules on one's own self is philosophy. Seeking to control others is politics. Choosing vegetarianism, or abstinence for one's self is a philosophy. Curtailing women's rights, or hanging apostates is politics. We already have (though still evolving) codified systems of politics, based on human rights and democracy, designed with reason and common sense to promote equality and harmony around the world. We do not need religions to dictate subversive alternative politics of hatred.

5. Business

Of course, no religion would be complete if it does not provide a means to make money for the people involved. Many religions have become lucrative businesses (although they probably always were). Whether it is the tithe given to the church, or devotees donating tons of gold to temples, religions are indeed big businesses. Not to mention that they are tax-free! No wonder then that smart businessmen in the recent past have started their own religions like Mormonism and Scientology. In India, "swamis" preaching neo-Hinduisms have proliferated. Of course, there are those who use this money for genuinely progressive purposes like building schools and hospitals. But then again, there is no reason such endeavors cannot be done based simply on the philosophy of the common good, for example, UNICEF. Religions essentially profit from these activities by being the "middle-men". I suppose one can engage in whatever legitimate profession one likes.

Perhaps we should all try starting our own religions just for the fun of it. In all actuality, it does not seem to take too much effort. Recycle a bunch of philosophical principles, mix it with some unverifiable fairy tales, possibly including the claim that a cooked up God creature passed them to you, grind it with some cultural practices, season it with many arbitrary restrictions, and garnish it with a few warning about the dangers of not believing in it - voila, you have a new religion! The tough part is probably gathering a coterie of dedicated "disciples" to take care of the logistics of propagating your religion to newer customers using carrots and/or sticks. Give it a few centuries, and who knows, maybe it will become the dominant player in the marketplace of religions!

In real life, more often than not, I do not have the time for such an exposition to people who ask me that question. If the freethinker response is not satisfactory, I just reply, "Yes, I am. No, I am not. Maybe. Any or all of these positions simultaneously!"

Why Telangana Should Get Statehood

For the last few months, there has been hectic activity (including violence!) on the streets of Delhi as well as Hyderabad and many other cities of Andhra Pradesh. The issue at hand is whether the Telangana 'region' of AP should be made a separate state. Furious arguments are being raised on either side of the divide. In the end, as is the case with most things in India, it all ends up being about politics. Surprisingly however, most intellectuals in this case are found arguing against the creation of a separate state. Their main arguments can be summarized as follows:

1. Creation of a new state might lead to similar demands elsewhere and lead to 'Balkanization' of India.
2. Telangana is a land-locked and economically unviable state.
3. Hyderabad's economy will suffer if it goes to such a state.
4. Unnecessary paperwork and overhead will be involved in creating and maintaining a new state.
5. It divides the Telugu speaking people and areas.

However, having assessed the arguments of the Anti-Telangana forces, it seems to me that the main reason is only the last - that this divides the Telugu speaking regions. It goes against the 'linguistic states' philosophy that India followed originally. I for one, believe that a separate Telangana state MUST be carved out of AP! Here's why:

1. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people from the Telangana region want a separate state. This has been the case for a few decades now, and has been reflected in the democratic choices those people have made. With this being the genuine wish of the majority, democratic ethos requires that their wish be respected within the constitution of India and it is only fair to grant them statehood. This applies to many other 'genuine burning demands of the people' elsewhere, especially Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Gorkhaland in West Bengal and Jammu and Ladakh in J&K. This is NOT 'Balkanization' of India as some argue, since, the people of Telangana are patriotic Indians in the end. They are not demanding a separate nationhood! What happened in the Balkans is a totally different story, where a nation broke down into multiple nations. Here, it will simply be a story of a nation federating itself further for the good.

2. By carving out a separate state out from a 'single language' state, the fundamental basis for 'linguistic chauvinism/regionalism' will be defeated, and this will send out a strong signal to every other 'linguistic' state. Linguistic chauvinism has always been one of India's banes, and this act could very well be a ground-breaking precedent to defeating that evil. We have seen a similar situation before in the sub-continent. Pakistan was carved out of India, arguing that different religions means different nations. But, by helping to carve out a Bengali-speaking Bangladesh out of it, India defeated the idea of religious nationalism. This applies not just to AP, but also Marathi-speaking Maharashtra.

3. India has created several so-called 'unviable' states before - the north-eastern states, for example. The problem is not the economic unviability as of the present, it is whether it is possible to make it viable in the future. Given Telangana's cultural and tourist potential, mineral wealth, etc, it is fairly clear that a viable state economy is possible. So this argument doesn't hold much water.

4. Reg the administrative overhead, one more state is no big deal for India. The United States, for example, has 50 states even though their population is only one-third of India's! The European Union is also similar. The Russian Federation is also a nice example of a large (the largest!) country being managed through multiple autonomous units. Anyways, AP as of now is too large for any government to run effectively. By 'shedding-off' Telangana, the new AP (coast + Rayalseema) can be a better administered state!

5. As far as Hyderabad is concerned, I agree it would be too expensive a loss economically for AP. Hence, I think it might be better to make it a Union Territory, and the shared capital of AP and the new Telangana, much like how Chandigarh is shared by Punjab and Haryana. The 'economic spoils' of Hyderabad can be shared by the two states. But this is easier said than done. Hyderabad is essentially 'surrounded' by Telangana (Rangareddy, Mahbubnagar and Nalgonda districts), and it will be tricky to implement such a solution.

6. Some people argue from a sentimental perspective about the 'unity of Telugu-speaking people'. But Telangana would only be made a separate state, not a separate country! And as per India's constitution, all states are equal and every Indian has a right to work/settle in any state. So this is no big deal either. Things are far worse for various other people elsewhere in the world. E.g, the Kurdish people are split between Iraq, Turkey and Iran, and don't have a unified nation to call their own!

Overall, I think India has too many 'elephantine' states, which are run very inefficiently. It might be wiser to split them up into smaller, more manageable, but viable states. But, this should be the case only where there is a real demand, and/or where it makes sense. E.g, UP continues to be a 'black-hole' state of India, and should seriously be split into two or three smaller states. Maharashtra, on the other hand, is a peculiar case. Even though it is India's richest state, the fact that statehood sentiments exist in Vidarbha only shows that the state government seems to have focused too much on Mumbai, Pune and the coast.

Hence, overall, I feel it is only wise to carve out a separate state of Telangana out of AP. But then again, as with most things in India, the decision ultimately is driven by political considerations, not logical/practical ones, even though a reputed former judge has been appointed to look into it!