A Wednesday: A Terrible Idea

The movie's premise, leaving aside what seems obvious, hinges on the subtextual notion that Muslims in India don't say/do enough to show that they are angered by the terrorist attacks that happen in India. So the director has decided to prove their 'Indianness' through his protagonist -- the 'common man.' But he doesn't want to make it obvious. It's subtle (ok, not so). The 'common man' speaks with a vocabulary quite peculiar to a certain community (mulk being the 'give away' word). So you know that the man behind this holy mission is a Muslim. Oh how unctuous?

The 'common man' who decides to take his anger out in the form of a threat -- another series of bomb blasts -- sends a message to the ruling bureaucracy that he is 'sick and tired.' What exactly is he sick and tired of? The answer to this question and the questions that surround the answer is what makes this movie so problematic.

First, the answer: The 'common man' delivers a sermon in which he describes the afflictions of a middle class man who commutes to work every day. He's troubled by the distant probability of him getting killed by a terrorist attack. Even more so because his fellow commuter -- a youngster with his 'entire life ahead' -- is killed by one that happened 'recently.'

There are about 20 million people living in and around Mumbai. Based on the terrorist attacks that have hit the city in the last decade, the average number of people killed every year would be less than 50. The probability that our 'common man' would be one of that 50 out of the 20 million is quite negligible. Actually, it's like the same guy winning the lottery twice (given that the 'common man' just survived an attack). He's more likely to be one of the 3,500 people who get killed every year on Mumbai's suburban railway lines alone.

Of course, one might say, "terrorism kills some and terrorizes the rest." True. I'll grudgingly admit that the 'common man's anxiety -- that he cannot go to work, and make that day's wage (or more) -- is justified on more practical (and probable) grounds than the improbable death itself. But where does his paranoia and outrage fit?

In a city that is brought to a grinding halt for days, sometimes weeks, every year by the monsoon? In a city where half its population lives in slums? In a city where raging mobs have killed more people than the blasts themselves? In a city where people are mowed down in greater numbers?

No. It fits in his middle class cocoon of a mind, preserved by ignorance and hypocrisy. The same thing that informs the movie's myopic perspective. It's no coincidence that the 'common man' picks four terrorists (three Muslim) to "purify" the country from. (It's quite ironic that he lists Malegaon among the other terrorist attacks.) While he questions why these men weren't convicted (or kept alive?) yet, he doesn't mention why no one is even indicted in many cases involving Hindu mobs.

I wonder if Naseeruddin Shah realized that he has risked becoming the Muslim poster-boy who viciously condemns 'Islamic terrorism.' One that is supposed to love India. Just like Sharukh Khan did in Chak De India. It's quite messed up when you think about it. I have probably been through a lot less than an Indian Muslim has, but even I don't 'love' India. But dare not he/she say that. At least not while in India. As if Naseeruddin Shah wasn't enough, the movie also has a cardboard cutout, Muslim police officer who's ready to get shot in the arm, and perhaps sacrifice his life, for the country. He's one of the many heroes in the infallible body that works day and night to protect the people: the Mumbai police. Need I say more about them?

The truth is, there is no 'common man.' There are those who are not Dalit, not poor, not illiterate, not political, and not silenced. By virtue of not being any of them he's already immune to their social malaise. Their misery doesn't seem to trouble him. The middle class 'common man' has little in common with majority of his fellow humans. 'Common man' is the last thing he should call himself.

Note: If you have not seen the movie yet, this post may not make sense. (This is not a review.)

Defiance

"Sri Lankan players attacked, tour called off." Come on now! You can't let the terrorists win!

White men

Calling for groups to be treated as separate entities with differing motivations, he wrote that it was not a "simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil" and treating them as such was a mistake.

This is why the British are way better than Americans.

Necessary but not sufficient

In my methods course, the first lecture was on causality. It's also one of my favourite topics of discussion. As with many epistemological concepts, causality can be exploited to weaken any argument merely because of its observational constraints. That is, the unobservability of certain measures because of the non-universality of the values associated with them. Academically speaking, psychology, among other social sciences, was one of the worst affected because of this "exploitation". Of course psychology, by the sheer number of experiments and empirical data, evolved into a strong and independent area that it no longer had to wait for others' "approval". Contrarily though, measures such as IQ, though disputed by some scholars, have now been established as "objective" and "universal". This article provides a good critique of intellectual bias behind of some of these "scientific constructs".

All said, I'm no saint when it comes to exploiting the limitations of the scientific method or citing the same to invalidate overly assumptive nonsense. Crudely put, I switch sides to sound smart. I have had to do it quite often with a topic that we cannot avoid ourselves from getting into, post 9/11. It's about religion and terrorism; more specifically, suicide bombing. But this article provides a very coherent deconstruction that cannot be escaped. I’ll just quote the most relevant parts,

Dawkins is suggesting that the motivation for certain ‘evil’ acts (not a word I like, but I think it’s clear that Dawkins means act that most of his readers would consider morally unacceptable) is sometimes religious belief, but that atheism does not have similar effects. Of course, this doesn’t mean that atheists don’t act immorally – presumably, according to Dawkins, when they do act in such a way it is not motivated by their atheistic commitments, nor is carried out in the name, or to advance the cause, of atheism. Brown responds with the line about Stalin killing the priests and the clergy. But what does this fact alone demonstrate? That an atheist committed mass murder – which tells us what? I’m no expert on Stalin’s reign, and so I don’t know what motivated his actions, but is Brown suggesting that his atheism per se was a decisive or contributing factor? It would seem so, when he writes “The claim that Stalin's atheism had nothing to do with his actions may be the most disingenuous in the book”. But what does Brown base the conclusion about the role of atheism in Stalin’s stunning inhumanity on apart from a correlation? If there is evidence that it atheism was a driving force, where is the evidence?

And there seems to be a bit of a double standard here. Brown seems irritated at Dawkins’s suggestion that religion can lead to terrible behaviour, but then tries to counter it with by showing that atheism can lead to bad behaviour. If it’s too simple to blame religion for bad behaviour, as Dawkins supposedly does, it should also be too simple to blame atheism, as Brown implies.

Brown also takes issue with the suggestion that religious fundamentalism is a causal factor in producing terrorist bombers:

[T]he definitive scientific study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, has just been published by Robert Pape, a Chicago professor who has a database containing every known suicide attack since 1980. This shows, as clearly as evidence can, that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers; in fact, it's not even necessary: the practice was widely used by Marxist guerrillas in Sri Lanka.

Whenever people want to illustrate the lack of efficacy of religion in producing suicide bombers, they always cite the Tamil Tigers, who are inspired by a Marxism rather than an explicit religious agenda (indeed, may Tamils might be atheists). Again, we have to ask what this shows. Imagine that someone wrote a book on the dangers of smoking, and reviewers pointed out that not all smokers get cancer, and that non-smokers also get cancer. Would we say “See, smoking isn’t dangerous after all”. Of course not. The fact that smoking is neither necessary nor sufficient for getting cancer isn’t the point. Smoking can still be an important cause of cancer – even the most important cause of cancer (I’m not saying it is) – even if people get cancer for other reasons. And so when people tried to get smoking banned in public places, or taxes increased to put people off smoking, we wouldn’t be entitled to say “But look, there are some other know causes of cancer, so leave smoking alone!”. It would still be appropriate to single smoking out, critically discuss it, and definitely withdraw government support for it (if there were, say, smoking academies).
(truncated)

As we see in the excerpt above, exemplary refutations suffer the same fate they inflict. It's like swords slicing one another. Then again, some swords are sharper than the others.