He was making the common mistake of equating higher intelligence with magic. He probably wouldn’t have resisted my suggestion as vehemently if I had said that an intelligent alien race created the universe. It was the word God that he wasn’t comfortable with.

But this disagreement pointed me in another direction. I realised that we tend to label a lot of concepts as ‘supernatural’ without a second thought. Things that science can’t explain are labeled supernatural. Ideas that are not reflected in scientific literature of the time are labeled supernatural. The God concept, of course, gets thrown into that pile as well.

Basically anything that isn’t part of the tangible, knowable, visible universe; is classified as supernatural. But it is not a valid classification, is it? The mistake we make in making such a classification is assuming that nature is only made up of things that we know. We mistake our view of the world to be the absolute world. We confuse the subjective with the objective.

A few centuries ago, the idea of man flying across continents in minutes may have been labeled supernatural. People recovering from utterly destroying injuries was supernatural some time ago. Now, thanks to advancements in medical science, such events are seen as perfectly natural. History has repeatedly rewritten our definitions of what is natural and what is supernatural. Our view of nature keeps expanding as time passes.

Religion, sadly, has often encouraged the facile divide between natural and supernatural. God has been put on a pedestal and his images have been lined with armies of priests specialising in incredibly complex rituals. What should have been man’s direct line with God has been turned into a veritable industry with all manner of middlemen telling you how to go about finding God. God has been taken from his rightful place – that is inside man – and imprisoned in an imposing “out there” and “up there” structure.

In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell describes the nature of the killing idea that the modern world has come to refer to as the supernatural:

The idea of the supernatural as being something over and above the natural is a killing idea. In the Middle Ages this was the idea that finally turned the world into something like a wasteland, a land where people were living inauthentic lives, never doing a thing that they truly wanted because the supernatural laws required them to live as directed by their clergy. In a wasteland, people are fulfilling purposes that are not properly theirs but have been put upon them as inescapable laws. This is a killer.

I myself used to think of God as something beyond nature. But when you actually think about it, there is nothing magical or supernatural about God or the so-called miracles. They are only aspects of reality we haven’t been exposed to yet. Once you understand them, they simply melt into the natural, becoming parts of it.

The divide between what we call natural and what we consider supernatural roots from the tendency to see certain things as being “beyond this realm”. In truth, there is no realm other than this one realm. It is only our faulty and limited understanding of reality that causes such bogus divisions. At the end of the day, there is only one universe that contains it all.

I usually don’t do it though. I have been in conversation with utterly obnoxious people who I did not agree with one bit and I still manage to ignore it all. I do however, make it a point to debate the hell out of them when there is at least one listener around.

I know full well that I can’t change anyone. The violent would remain violent, the stupid will remain stupid, and the impressionable (even though they may agree with my arguments right now) will remain impressionable.

The reason I care about the listeners is that they are the decision-makers. I might also add that they are often the majority. Listeners sit around, seemingly doing nothing. Most of the time, you won’t even know they are there. But make no mistake, listeners are everywhere, at least in most social environments, and definitely all over the internet.

When you let someone you believe is wrong have his say without interrupting him, you rob the listeners of a chance to hear the other side of the story – YOUR side of the story.

When I debate an issue on the internet, my intention is not to ‘defeat’ the other person or to ‘prove’ him wrong. Anyone who has ever been in an argument will know that that is impossible. I debate for the nameless third parties. I debate so that my opponent’s view of the world may not be the only one to go out to them.

It may seem like a wasteful exercise to many. I call it balance.

Because India is a deeply religious country
I fail to see the connection. How does gay sex disrupt religion? What, for that matter, does it even have to do with religion? Being stuck in the sixteenth century is one thing. Blaming religion for it is quite another. Religion is not about being static and stuck (though a lot of ‘religious’ people make it look that way).

Because it is immoral
Says you Einstein! I don’t think gay and lesbian sex is immoral. There you go. Your word against mine. Now unless you come out in the open and say that you think you are more important than I am, this is not going to work. And in any case, who died and made you keeper of Indian morality? What, now that we are at it, is Indian morality? I don’t know. And I am sure you will answer by pointing to your personal morality. Pull your head out of the sand asshat! The world is moving on. Try and catch up.

Because it is unnatural
Define unnatural. Didn’t you hear what I just said? Nothing that exists within nature can be unnatural. You are the one who came up with these labels. And since nature knows of no such boundaries, YOU must be unnatural, right? Who made you an expert on nature anyway?

Holy books forbid it
Holy books be damned! I do not intend to allow my country be run by that which is written in them. Anyway, any holy book that you might care to bring into the discussion is likely to trump your own arguments. No holy book I ever read allows for criminalising homosexuality. Religion is more concerned with individual morality and well-being. The idea of making it an instrument of state policy is something only your sorry brain could come up with.

Because you will soon demand the right to have sex with animals
I will not go into defending the argument for legalising homosexuality against that sorry line. But let me ask you this. Why should someone’s sexual preferences be any of your business? Why would anyone go to you for permission before having sex with animals? And why do you bring animal sex in to defend all of your points? You seem obsessed with the idea really.

Homosexuality is a danger to heterosexuality
You are a retard if you think the High Court’s ruling will cause straight people everywhere to turn gay overnight and roam the streets looking for innocents to rape. Do heterosexual people run after all members of the opposite sex they find? Homosexuality has existed in India and the world for thousands of years and never once has it come close to bringing our ever-increasing populations down. Grow up, will you?

Because it causes diseases
First of all, there is no evidence by any medical body of repute (WHO etc.) to support that argument. Secondly, what doesn’t cause disease? You seem to have drawn up a list of things that are wrong with the world and are taking turns blaming it all on homosexuality. What’s next? The rains? Why not ban sex to get rid of AIDS. Or ban currency notes to end robbery and theft? Seriously, you need help!

Because homosexuality will cause mankind to become extinct
Fantastic line of reasoning sir! You get a toaster. The only way, in my humble and irreligious opinion, mankind is going to go extinct is if we bomb ourselves into oblivion. I don’t think homosexuality will achieve what years of planned birth control initiatives failed in doing. In any case, homosexuality has been around for centuries and not done anything of the kind. All the Delhi High Court’s ruling does is give dignity to people who want to be themselves.

So you say we should just allow people to do anything they want?
There are two sides to this answer. First, you are nobody to allow or disallow me to do anything at all. Secondly, it is my belief that the age when regressive thought controlled the fates of nations is past. You are obsolete. I am free to do anything that is within the ambit of the law and doesn’t harm another. The choices people make in their private lives are up to them and are not something the state should bother itself with. Those who fail to keep their opinions of others to themselves, should be heard out and ignored. Happy?

This is not over. We will be back
Sigh. I wasn’t hoping to change your hearts really. I just like kicking you around. This is not about homosexuality really, is it? You just want your will to be done. Well, same here. Come back any time you want. I will wait.

I bet there were no grammar books involved. You weren’t subjected to critical studies and there were no tests to ascertain your level of intimacy with your mother tongue.

You learnt by immersion. You heard things, repeated them as best as you could (while people around you laughed at you), and eventually got the hang of it. You will agree with me when I say that the method is efficient. I am sure you speak your native language far more effortlessly and expertly than you speak languages you took classes for.

The first time I saw a computer was in my uncle’s office. I wanted to know more, so I started frequenting a cybercafe in front of my college where I had to pay them by the hour. I was fascinated. I told as many of my friends about ‘this Internet thing‘ as I could. I wanted everyone online. Some listened, most didn’t. They couldn’t imagine how computers might change things. They admitted the experience was fancy though.

A few months later, my college introduced a basic computer course. Those who signed up would get a DCA (Diploma in Computer Application) certificate after ten months. The lure of an additional certificate got many to join. Where I come from, your chance at employment is considered directly proportional to the number of certificates (fake, pointless, or otherwise) you have.

Nearly four to five months later, I learnt that none of them had even touched a computer yet! I hunted down someone from the economics department who I knew was taking the course and asked him what the classes were like.

They were just classes, he told me. The instructor dictated notes, which they dutifully jotted down (with pens, on paper notebooks) and memorised. Then they took written tests where they were asked questions like ‘What is a dialog box?’ and ‘How would you shut down Windows 98?’ and ‘How would you launch Microsoft Word?’ and ‘Define an operating system.’.

This was stuff I figured out on my first day in front of a computer! And I am no genius (though I will happily forgive you for thinking so). It was the Windows 98 GUI for God’s sake! I asked him if they were ever going to actually use computers. He said, “Of course. But the basics are most important. We have been told we will be allowed to operate on the machines soon. They are making us ready for it.”

Where do I start? Never mind. I will refrain from fault-finding and skip straight to the solution part.

I don’t think computer skills of the basic kind fall under the scope of science anymore. They are more of a social skill nowadays. For a course like DCA, you definitely don’t need to memorise the definition of an operating system.

How about if you just let students play around with computers and acquaint themselves with the system? Then the instructor comes in and fills them in on the technicalities. It is simple, workable and saves a whole lot of time and energy for everyone involved.

Sadly enough, most ‘computer institutes’ spread all over the small-town India follow the age old top-down classroom model. Small wonder then, that most of them have one or two computers for a class of over twenty students.

We are kind of missing the whole point of computer literacy if you ask me.

Like many so-called educated people, I have deluded myself and those around me by imagining myself to be unbiased. But I want you to know, right now, that I am not. In fact, I am quite severely biased in favour of certain ideologies and violently opposed to some others.

I am against those who tell me how to lead my life. I don’t care about their culture and religion. Mine allows me go to pubs, drink, mingle with members of the opposite sex, and celebrate Valentine’s Day.

I am against those who support violence against women. No matter how ‘Indian’ or holy they claim their reasons to be.

I am also against violence as a way of protest. If you need to hurt people in order to have your voice heard, you don’t deserve any attention.

I am not proud of being an Indian or being a Hindu. I am however, very proud of India and Hinduism. Those who don’t understand the difference can either ask me or go do strange things to themselves.

There was a time, when I used to take the above things for granted. I assumed they constituted good sense and morality. Not any more. A line has been drawn and a side needs to be chosen. So here I am, making my stand.

…Ajith moved the Supreme Court through counsel Jogy Scaria seeking quashing of the criminal complaint on the ground that the blog contents were restricted to communication within the community and did not have defamation value. He also pleaded that there was threat to his life if he appeared in a Maharashtra court.

A computer science student, Ajith pleaded that the comments made on the blog were mere exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of expression and speech and could not be treated as an offence by police.

Unimpressed, the Bench said, "We cannot quash criminal proceedings. You are a computer student and you know how many people access internet portals. Hence, if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct."

I for one, am happy that the Sena is actually seeking legal recourse instead of vandalising cyber cafes or getting them to ban Orkut. As for the decision of the court, I agree completely. As Prem Panicker explained in an email, it is no big deal.

The SC only said that it cannot, suo moto, quash a criminal prosecution.

It did not say the case is well-founded — that is for the court to decide on the basis of existing law.

Ajith incidentally cannot say he is in fear of his life and hence the case should be quashed — what he *can* do is ask that the case be transferred to a Kerala court, on the grounds the alleged offense was committed there, the alleged culprit is based there, and not in Thane.

My friend Gopal Sathe mailed in explaining why this is a good thing. The blurry lines between the mainstream and the lawless realm of the web needs to be given a shape.

I’m not talking about the specifics here. But I think that some guidelines for notability need to be laid down – within the framework of these guidelines it would be easier to dismiss the Sena case, but at the same time would prevent people from misusing the freedoms granted by the internet.

The medium is inherently public. Cloaked in anonymity people say things they might not in any other situation. In some… no in many cases, this is a good thing. But a blog dedicated to chronicling, in unrestrained detail, the love life of the people working with the blogger? Regardless of the veracity of the information. Particularly if the identity of the blogger, or any of his subjects becomes known. Think about it for a second.

Now consider. If instead of a blog post, this 19 year old had made a short film, and got it screened in public. We might still disapprove the Sena suing him, but wouldn’t find it fundamentally wrong of them. Norms need to be established. To protect our rights, to individual dignity and privacy, and also our right to free speech. After all, if we can cry foul when a blogger’s work is copied without permission, then why can’t a blogger be sued? Even if the other side of the argument is the Shiv Sena? Because to condemn their case without hearing it first is to become a fundamentalist oneself.

I hope, in the long run, such cases come up more and more, urging creation of laws that would help govern the Indian Internet. The web has far too long been known as home to the unsocial and the anti-social.

The Constitution of India makes allowance for a candidate to do a 49-0. In other words, a voter may go to a polling booth and declare in writing that he refuses to vote for any of the available candidates. The clause goes thus:

49-O: Elector deciding not to vote. – If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.

Today, on February 24, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench for consideration as it involved some key questions related to constitutional law.

A two-judge bench of Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi felt that the issue needed to be adjudicated by a larger bench as there were certain ‘doubts’ over the interpretation of the ruling passed by a Constitution bench in the Kuldip Nayar Vs Union of India case relating to a voter’s right.

The Constitution bench, while rejecting an argument that the right to vote is a constitutional right, had observed, “It is clear that a fine distinction was drawn between the right to vote and the freedom of voting as a species of freedom of expression, while reiterating the view in Jyoti Basi Vs Debi Ghosal that a right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right but pure and simple a statutory right.”

I believe that the right to cast a negative vote, if it comes through, will be a powerful agent of change. Often, the Indian voter is faced with the choice between a criminal and a criminal. That is no choice at all. Here’s hoping for the decriminalisation of Indian politics.

I don’t know how you would like to define a minority. So let me go with what the dictionary says:

1. the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.

2. a smaller party or group opposed to a majority, as in voting or other action.

3. a group differing, esp. in race, religion, or ethnic background, from the majority of a population: legislation aimed at providing equal rights for minorities.

If you are an Indian, or know India even a little, you will realise that none of the above definitions apply to this country. Simply because there is no such thing as a complete, whole India. All we have is a name, a political border and a government.

We live in the middle of a blinding mix of cultures and sub-cultures. Rituals, beliefs, and religiousity mix and melt into each other on a daily basis to create India. The lines that keep our so-called ‘parts’ apart are blurry at best. If you want to be even more practical about it, suffice it to say that they don’t exist. Shashi Tharoor says it better than I could ever do:

For the simple fact is that we are all minorities in India. There has never been an archetypal Indian to stand alongside the archetypal Englishman or Frenchman. A Hindi-speaking Hindu male may cherish the illusion that he represents the ‘majority community’, an expression much favoured by the less industrious of our journalists. But he does not. As a Hindu, he belongs to the faith adhered to by 81 per cent of the population. But a majority of the country does not speak Hindi. A majority does not hail from Uttar Pradesh, though you could be forgiven for thinking so when you go there. And if he were visiting, say, my home state of Kerala, he would be surprised to discover that a majority there is not even male.

Even his Hinduism is no guarantee of his majorityhood., because his caste automatically puts him in a minority. If he is a Brahmin, 90 per cent of his fellow Indians are not. If he is a Yadav, 85 per cent of his fellow Indians are not. And so on.

Tharoor goes on with the comparisons and makes many intersting points. Here’s another example:

A Karnataka Brahmin shares his Hindu faith with a Bihari Kurmi, but they share little identity with each other in respect of their dress, customs, appearance tastes, language or even, these days, their political objectives.

How do I define India, or me, or you, in the middle of this big lovable jungle?

I meet up with my friends in Connaught place most weekends. A Punjabi girl who has the hots for a Mallu, a fat guy who is half Marathi and half Oriya, another Christian (Catholic?) girl whose dad and mom are Malyali and Tamil (I am not sure if the order is right, and I don’t care) who is going out with a Hindu guy who I sometimes differ with on politics.

Who am I again? We all know the answer. It can’t be put into words, but we know it nevertheless.

I know you are analytical & highly educated people, and have my best interests at heart. But you are also blind. Allow me to explain.

A band of murderers pops out of nowhere and kills a whole lot of everyday folks (just like me) and then send you a letter (or a video, or an email) telling you who they would like to be known as and who they represent and what they want.

You then, in your great wisdom, read their lies to the whole nation aloud (with flashy lights and exciting music in the background for added effect).

Please stop doing that! It is fucking irritating!

I, and many others like me, can do without their lies. And it irritates to see you repeat their lies for them.

Can’t you tell?

I don’t care what they are called. I don’t care where they are from. I don’t care who they think they are doing this for. They killed people – they are murderers.

Stop calling them Islamists or Hindus or activists or outfits. Words like ‘criminal’ and ‘murderer’ work just fine.

If they need to kill people to get the governments’ attention, then they don’t deserve ANY attention. In fact, I would go so far as to say that murderers don’t deserve freedom of speech.

I would love for them to be nameless and uncategorised. The whole lot of them undesirables. I would like them to be put away for life, with no one ever seeing them again, or hearing of from them, or hearing of them and their so-called ’cause’.

Update: I received an email in response to this post. Read it here.

Let me get this straight. You are honourable members of the Hindu faith who feel violated by Christian intruders’ attempts to turn honest and god-fearing Hindus (such as yourself) to their faith. That’s it, right?

May I ask you which tenets of Hinduism ask you to maim, murder, and humiliate unarmed people in order to defend the faith you so claim to love? Where in all of those oft-quoted religious texts does violence against the unarmed find mention as one of your weapons?

Are you sure it is your religion that is making you do this? Are you sure you are not doing this because you are a gutless, illiterate, psychopathic criminal? Are you sure you are not doing this because you enjoy the killing and the raping? Or maybe you know all this and still choose to blame it on your religion. Religions don’t talk back, do they?

You decide to go do some manhunting. You find there is no way you can do all that and still have claim to residence in civilised society. So you rev up the rhetoric and call forth other criminals like yourself. You hide behind political organisations and religious bodies and do your killing conveniently. Anyone who opposes you automatically becomes a faithless traitor (or to use a more fashionable phrase, a ‘pseudo-secularist’).

Here comes another crucial part of your motivation. You just want to hurt. You are angry at a lot of things in your life. But not enough to fight. So you carefully choose people who can’t fight back. Going out and out criminal will cause you to go against the law. You don’t want that. Joining the army includes considerable risk to life and limb. So that is out of the question as well. Why not take it out on the helpless and the weak? If someone raises their voice, you can always play the ‘defender of faith‘ card, right?

That, right there, is your little game.

Tell you what… I am done with you. From what I have read, Hinduism is hard to define. We don’t worship one god, nor many. We don’t abhor violence, neither do we embrace it. But if it comes right down to the dirty matter of choosing sides, you can count me out of your little criminal club.

You and I are not the same. If you are a Hindu, I am not. I wish I could claim Hinduism as my own private little garden, but then I would have to breathe the same air as you scum. I would rather remain faithless then have anything to do with you.