Stepping it up in Amsterdam

As far as I knew, Holland was a country famous for two things -- its tulip fields and prostitution. And I suspect, the reason the country is not on the priority list of many Indians - even in Switzerland - for touring is the amazing reputation it seems to have built up as a 'liberal' country. Talk Amsterdam, and most people will conjure up visions of a marijuana smoking hyper free society better avoided than abetted. I myself picturised the city in my mind as one that would be filled with crowded streets and unavoidable unpleasant sights.

It will not be difficult to document here therefore that my keenness to visit the country in the month of April can without much question be ascertained to my keenness to see the tulip blossoms. In fact, I really expected nothing more than this.

Which is why I am still not able to get over the feeling of wanting to kick myself for having gone by popular opinion in forming a judgment about a place I knew little about. Amsterdam is one of the most beautiful cities I have ever seen in my life. Of course, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Holland is a flat land with half of its area below sea level. But it is not so much about the resources that Holland has, but what its citizens have made of those resources.

As you drive around in Amsterdam, you will see around you wide pedestrian pavements, beside which are nearly four foot wide paths for cyclists. Three lane roads align smoothly beside these paths for smooth motoring by automobile enthusiasts. Team this with a well designed transport network including trams, buses and the metro and you have one of the finest public transport systems ever designed. The Dutch government meanwhile does not ignore the environment, as many of the roads are all tree lined.

One of the most soothing sights in Amsterdam is the canals. The city is full of them, which is why getting a residential apartment with a water view is not out of bounds even in a seemingly middle class neighbourhood. What a dream! How many cities can truly boast of that? It would have been so easy for an overly liberal citizenry to make swamps of these canals, but not so. Amsterdam is a city where the spaces are so wide open that you get the feeling of finally being able to breathe freely, in a truly verdant setting.

If you think you have covered Holland by going to Keukenhof - the tulips village - you are so mistaken. Much depends of course, on the visitor's inclination for coming to a city. But for someone like me who was resigned to accepting the tulip fields as the highlight of the trip, the city's offerings of culture and history were simply mindblowing. Amsterdam is full of museums, and of them the most famous and visit worthy according to me are the Anne Frank museum and the Van Gogh museum -- two glowing tributes to two distinctly colourful personalities. The Anne Frank museum helps you relive the destiny of a 12 year old Jewish girl, as she hides with her family in the secret and dark chambers of her father's erstwhile office, to escape the clutches of an uncompromising Hitlerian regime. Moving through the house -- now converted to a museum -- brings to reality the optimism kept alive by this girl in the few years of their confinement, till fate ruthlessly brings to end their last hopes with a betrayal, separation of the family, confinement in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, disease followed by inevitable death. For sometime after you visit this museum, you simply feel helpless -- all senses forgo you because you just cannot understand the simple question: 'why?'

The Van Gogh museum is an experience in itself. You can watch an exhibition of paintings, but this museum is not only about looking at paintings. An audio tour and careful arrangement of the exhibits ensures that you enter the life of this artist, as the paintings are accompanied by original/copies of the transcripts of his correspondence with his family and colleagues. The styles are explained as also the travels of the master himself in Europe, as he tries to acquaint himself with different styles and materials of his time.

Much to our surprise we found long queues already waiting when we arrived at the museums, and we were lucky that this was the year of the recession else from what we were told the expected visitors to Holland at this time of the year would have been about double the numbers seen by us. Imagine the queues then!

Amsterdam is a bustling city, and its beauty lies in the way it seamlessly merges its culture and history with its modernity. Highrises here don't clutter the skyline, but stand out in glass and concrete amidst a peaceful oasis of greenery and water beds. The Dutch are proud of their city, but can be quite refreshingly self effacing about their progress. Unlike some parts of Europe, language is not a barrier here and the Dutch pride themselves in being multi lingual. French, German, Italian and English speaking guides are available, and it is easy to find one guide switching from French to Dutch to English to German on the trip.

Visiting the museums in Holland gave me the impression that the Dutch do not balk at being brutally honest about their history. No stopping at glowing tributes about their great motherland or fatherland. They acknowledge the excesses committed in Europe in the name of Christianity, and museums like the torture museum give detailed pictures and models of instruments of torture used to extract confessions from dissenting peoples. The Dutch are matter of fact about acknowledging publicly that when it comes to a conflict of religion and economy, it will be the former that will be given a back seat.

I can go on and on about this fascinating city, with its three storey high parking lots dedicated exclusively to bicycles, its ATMs safely located in the middle of the pedestrian pavement instead of against the wall of a bank under an awning, its commercial complexes kept open on Sundays and that too during Easter, its windmills and wooden shoe factories thriving in a modern Amsterdam designed for 2009, and its street performers drawing tourist interest with the sheer novelty of their instruments. I bought a CD from a street performer for Euro 5/-, as passers by stood perplexed and fascinated listening to him play Tantric sounds as if accompanied by a tabla, on what seemed to us like an upturned metal bowl -- not unlike the ones housewives in India use at home to fry puris in.

I won't be fair in ending this travelogue however, if I don't mention the one thing that did not impress me about Amsterdam. The dress sense of the public in general. Coming from Geneva, I guess its not a fair comment to make. Geneva residents are one of the most stylishly dressed populace one can come across. But there is a sloppiness in the dress sense of the people walking the streets of Amsterdam that develops into an eye sore after some time. Men who look like distinguished bankers from the front, end up resembling punk and rock stars once they turn around with their ponytails sitting comfortably on their necks. It will not be fair to blame the Dutch for what could be a trend brought in by the expatriate community, but still, it seemed there was much left to be learnt in this respect.

Amazing Swiss politics

Its almost an year since we came here, and some of our friends have been here for over 10 years. We talk about so many things, we talk about differences and commonalities between people who have lived here long enough and those that came in only recently. But there is one thing that is common amongst all of us, whether we have lived here long enough or not: We don't know who the President or Chancellor or Councillor of Switzerland is.

Switzerland does not have a President or a Prime Minister. It has a group of Councillors advised by a Chancellor. The Councillors function on the basis of rotation. And none of them are poster boys or poster girls for the Swiss political system. You never see their faces dominating the front pages of the newspapers, nor on billboards. You can live here a lifetime and not know their names. What is even better: if you are not politically inclined, it doesn't matter a whit to your daily life.

It is said that the Councillors travel like ordinary Swiss citizens, and it is possible to come across them in the same tram as yourself i.e. provided you know who they are. You can chat with them and there are no bureaucratic formalities required to access them. No black cat commandos to guard their precious lives, no disruption of traffic to let the VIP entourage pass and no, 'May I know the purpose for which you wish to meet Mr.XXX, Sir?' business. I do not still fully understand how the system works, but I did encounter a French speaking black lady requesting me to vote for her in the elections to be held in October this year. She left me her card. She did not give a speech from any podium. She went to each person and spoke personally and gave them her card.

Swiss politics is citizen dominated. Major issues are placed before the citizens for their vote, and often decisions get stalled because of a lack of clear majority. Nevertheless, its greatest strength is the inability of the political system to bulldoze its citizens. If a decision fails, the citizens' have to live with the consequences. Sometimes the sheer force of the negative consequences influences the vote e.g. the recent decision (finally) of Switzerland to become part of the Schengen region. It was hard on many of the citizens, but forceful arguments provided on the drawbacks of defeating the vote led to it finally being passed through. The Swiss do not like being told what to do by the international community. In fact their self insulation from the chaotic decisions of the international community is the major source of Swiss pride.

When one contrasts this with the kind of incessant exposure given to political leaders worldwide, elevating their status to demi-gods through the sheer power of media exposure, attributing every success of the country to his or her leadership as if the rest of the citizens were nobody and nothing, I have to wonder: What is it about people that makes them want to live in the make-believe world of make-believe heroes????

Elections: The Voter's Swayamvara

Some of the fascinating stories in Indian mythology revolve around the weddings of glamorous eligible princesses. A message goes out to kingdoms near and far that the princess is ready to choose her suitor. Eligible suitors from far and near come to woo the princess. A tough competition is prepared to eliminate the ineligible and the weakly motivated. The princess then garlands the victor and the wedding is announced. Should the princess be more rebellious than expected of her, she ignores the results of the competition anyway and chooses her own hero. All in all, a grand finale.

Except, in many cases, the grandeur ends there and then for the princess. Either the following years are a painful process of adjustment and sacrifice, or worse -- that's the last we hear of the princess.

Cut the scene to modern election day platforms. The voter is in the shoes of the princess. The king's message to the kingdoms of the readiness of the princess to wed is the declaration of elections. The competition is the election campaign. Election day is the swayamvara itself. And of course, the grand finale is the announcement of the leading political party with its multiple spouses (read 'voters'). Post election, the voter is not much more than a hapless victim. Some voters choose to remain spinsters, by abstaining from voting. But their situation is no better for the decision. And then there are people like me, who have been placed in the respectable position of not having the right to vote -- because we don't reside on a specified territory of geographical space on this planet called Earth in this vast universe.

Much has been made of democracy being the most advanced form of a political system. In fact, even a science fiction extravaganza like Star Wars touts democracy as the system to fight for in inter-galactic wars. The setting is cosmic, and the story is just a folk-tale of a good king ruling the people happily ever after, with an army of Jedis to beat up the dark forces. Yaawwwn! When are we going to move on?

When are we going to move on from 'In God we trust' to 'In our fellowmen we trust'? When are we ever going to trust? Elections as a progressive form of government have legitimised elected religious governments that proceed to impose citizen restrictions with impudence. They have legitimised elected dictatorships in the name of popular demand. Democracy and elections have been reduced to 'Vote for a face'. For many, it is a swayamvar of the crooks.

Democracy as a political form of government and elections as a representation of people's voice have no meaning unless certain fundamental parameters are set as preconditions to introducing a democratic form of government. Such fundamental parameters should include the right to life, liberty, justice, protection of life and freedom of all forms of expression for starters. Once a fundamental charter is formulated and agreed to in letter and spirit, the process of conducting elections can begin. It is not enough that the voter reaches the polling booth. The vote has no meaning if the polling booth is in reality a facade for the will of the few.

America's move to benevolent elected dictatorship

Back in college, we were first introduced to a powerful author by the name of Ayn Rand -- a Russian emigrant to the United States of America from Stalinist Russia -- and ever since a fierce opponent of Communism and all forms of governmental control. She was not an economist per se, but as a philosopher she advocated capitalism as the only logical economic possibility for a society that can claim itself to be based on respecting the right to freedom and human rights.

An ardent supporter of the founding principles of the US of A and a staunch atheist, her objectivist theory was nevertheless ruthless in stating that human beings are as rigidly subject to the laws of the universe as any other species or objects in the universe, that humans cannot 'do whatever they want and get away with it'. While religious advocates stated that breaking God's rules would invite divine wrath, she maintained that human beings were subject to rational laws, and breaking them would invite a chaotic self existence -- an inability to deal with life and with living. During her time, she was a staunch critic of the progressive governments of USA and never more than when Nixon floated the dollar and did away with the Gold standard. She passionately denounced the theory that money is the root of evil, saying that it was the most honest measure of a person's economic integrity and therefore must be valued.

Almost forty years down the line, her predictions seem to have come true to the T. In 2008, Americans seem to have gone to the polls not to elect a President of the US of A, but to choose a messiah who they hope will get them out of the mess they don't seem to have a clue how they got into. Having tried to politically correct themselves in every issue, right to how a toddler should be handled by his own grandparents, they have achieved a rare level of dumbing down from which simple maths has begun to look like rocket science.


If America were the capitalist country the world claims it to be, then businesses in USA should have long ago insisted on Washington delinking fiscal measures and currency control from political clutches. America's defence system and its ability to wage wars across the world should have been dependent on the actual value of its GDP -- and its currency creation and circulation should have been in the hands of an independent fiduciary system, free from the political influences of Capitol Hill. In fact America should have been arguing for just such an economic model across all nations, rather than going to war to install an externally enforced political system on countries unprepared for the same.

Today, what we are watching in the USA is an unbelievable story that is the political equivalent of an elected benevolent dictatorship. American democracy has degenerated to an 8 year gamble on the next lucky mascot. The issue of Democrat and Republican has vaporised into irrelevance. Today's news is everything about what Barack Obama says, what he does, what he means, and what he can deliver. This, from a nation that was founded on the rejection of political interference in its citizens' lives, and claimed that that government is best which governs the least. Such extollment of a political leader in any other country would have been tantamount to political immaturity.

One can argue that the dynamics of the world have changed -- that this is not the
18th century;that those principles have become obsolete; that the growth of technology at an exponential rate and the inability of legislation to catch up at the same pace is somewhat responsible. But this is an escapist argument.

Virtually everything about globalisation has had a political background. The development of the Eurodollar market was political. Tax rates, interest rates and currency floats by governments forced money markets either into or out of certain countries. Customs unions and politically backed bilateral trade agreements have forced trade to adopt newer methods of circumventing international laws. The greater the legislation, the more complicated the modus operandi to overcome legislative barriers. Initially, it was trade that was targeted; gradually the legislation moved to currency as money itself became a source of trading. The traditional method was to use money to purchase a good. Politically motivated legislation (e.g. the floating of currencies) led to money being used to purchase and sell money -- better known now as currency trading.

Apart from the explosive breeding of incomprehensible financial instruments, the most conspicuous consequence of such legislation has been the development of a specialisation culture that has produced an advanced version of 'It's not my job' culture that is seen in red tape organisations. Loosely translated, this advanced sophisticated culture can be stated as 'If its your job to tell me I am wrong, then I shall proceed to do wrong and leave it to you to find out and tell me I am wrong. And between us if we can strike an understanding, then we will leave it to your next hierarchical authority to find out. If we can still save our skins, then being practical demands that we do exactly that'.

It is funny that in the maritime world, a captain hands himself over as a hostage to a notorious gang of pirates in Somalia, in exchange for his crew being freed, while a CEO earning million dollar bonuses writes a pathetic resignation letter justifying the payment of bonuses from taxpayers' money for an organisation bankrupted under his stewardship. It is even more incongruous when one observes that the former went it alone, without any idea of what would happen to him - while the latter enjoyed extensive political patronage of a sympathetic government. American capitalism was born with the objective of celebrating the spirit of free enterprise -- because it believed in the Richard Philips of this world. Yet the socialisation of American business has eventually resulted in the exposing of its most prominent businessmen and financial heads to be of the likes of DeSantis (him being just a prominent scapegoat for the bunch).

Whether America and Americans can slowly trod back to their avowed economic ideals is a moot point. The President has vowed that the foundations on which America was built are not diluted. But

• when regulators, the Federal Reserve, the auditing profession and the professionals themselves failed to prevent the crisis,
• when the tracking of the bailout money itself is recognised as an impossible task,
• when a governmental bailout inevitably requires governmental oversight,
• when business heads and organisations are not only resigned to governmental intervention, but are actively seeking it
• when business leaders are not raising a hue and cry about political interference in business,
• when you don't hear the words 'laissez faire' anymore,
• and when an atmosphere has been created where virtually every American sees some virtue in the interventional economics and politics of the Obama government

what in fact does the future hold for the US of A? And if American economy has nosedived and crashed into blatant socialism, what is in store for the rest of the world?

.

Random cyber firing on the Mumbai attacks

After trying desperately to wish away the ugliness of the ideological monsters facing our nation, the media has finally declared India's helplessness. Was this inevitable? Given their stand, yes. But otherwise no, it was not meant to be.

Even today, the media is not so much concerned about the political future of our nation, as it is about the likely Hindu Muslim backlash, or derailment of India-Pak "peace process" (what an insult!) that might take place. In 1947, India had a dream - a dream of creating a nation in which all religions would flourish, and where everyone would have equal opportunity and equal rights. It was no doubt a dream fit for the 21st century and beyond. Was it practical? For the Hindu dominated Parliament - the answer was YES - despite the creation of East and West Pakistan. For its educated citizens, YES! In fact a significant number of Muslims too were part of this dream. So why did this dream go wrong?

The answer is not surprising. Even discounting the fact that a frankenstein was breeding in our own neighbourhood, the Hindu establishment naively believed that if they were generous enough, the dream would have to succeed at some time or another. And therefore, while their dream was to create equality for all, religious accountability was not sought from either the Christians or Muslims. The Hindus rather naively presumed that leading by example would automatically ensure percolation of the stated ideals to all levels.

And this was their mistake. Instead of telling the Muslims - all right, Pakistan has been created - Hindus are upset - we want to be secular and will ensure we are all equal - but what will you do in return to ensure that Islam does not create a religious divide in this country again, instead of asking the Christians - yes, we are secular but this does not mean the country is a free for all for uninhibited religious campaigning and conversions, what are you going to do to provide succour to the Hindus since your essence is evangelisation? - instead of raising these unpleasant issues, our leaders assumed these could be kept on the backburner. No accountability was sought, on the contrary the objections and requests of the minorities for exceptions were handed out as generous concessions.

Just as a mother pampers her child in the hope that the child will understand and reciprocate when he or she grows up, only to find that the child is too ill equipped to deal with the travails of life and is therefore taking the anger out on her, the Hindus took on the onus of creating a pluralistic society and drew no boundaries. Brahmins? Brand them as upper caste criminials. No problem if their accesses will be reduced silently. It is not in their blood to retaliate. Maharajas? - declare them defunct. Upper castes? - we will profile them. Temples? - government takeover will be implemented with scant respect for local sentiments. Hindu practices? We will declare them unconstitutional and illegal - we don't need a consensus from the affected parties. Ban Satanic Verses? - Sure, we have to prove our sensitivities to the minorities. Send Tasleema into hiding? - okay, if that will make the oppressed Muslims feel better. Ignore Shah Bano's need for maintenance - Not an issue. Conversions? - we will classify them as religious freedom.

The cracks had to become wider. When termites eat into a giant tree, they don't need axes and bombs. They just eat it away, bit by bit. This is what the political establishment did to the Hindus. Eat them away - bit by bit. While it is true that power equations gradually corrupted the political establishment, 60 years down the line our ideological path on the absoluteness of pluralism had not diverted much from its original vision. But, we failed to establish our moral upper hand because we were convinced we had a weak spot - the Caste System.

Strictly speaking - one has to study world history and literature only a little and then compare it to the Hindu caste system. The caste system is a fact in 21st century India!! Like it or not, it is a fact. It is what a Hindu belongs to. All said and done however, the Hindu caste system is nowhere as abhorrent as the white man's slavery, Christian hatred of jews as late as the 1940s and continuing muslim hatred of the jews and hindus, communist purges and genocides across cuba, cambodia, eastern europe, china and russia, muslim christian wars in europe and tribal genocides in africa. It is funny the christian world can even claim to comprise progressive nations given their history.

Hindu history is less documented and therefore not as easily verifiable, but if folk tales and grandmother's stories are anything to go by in addition to what is there in history books, the tales rarely reflect the goriness of their western counterparts. It is not surprising that while the rest of the world was at war with itself in the first half of the 20th century, Indians were civilised enough to identify with the non-violent ideology of a lone reformer - to the extent of creating a nationalistic passion across India based on it. The identification was not an accident. It is the highest spiritual essence of the notion that is India. Even the farmer in India is capable of understanding this.

And this is perhaps what was indigestable to the self styled morally progressive thinkers of the West. How can a nation without industries, guns and printing presses actually respond to a higher philosophical call than their more enlightened citizens who were busy butchering humans in concentration camps, simply for being religiously different? For decades they had already been working on a different strategy - create a guilt complex about Hinduism being a primitive religion - not compatible with the material advancement of the West. It is said the pen is mightier than the sword. The Britishers used both - guns to fire and printing presses to denigrate Indian society. They damned both Muslims and Hindus - so badly that after Independence it took us till the IT revolution to get our sense of identity back. Which is why when the BJP came to power, Indians within and outside India who constantly faced this implied attack on Hindus, felt justifiedly proud and vindicated. The muslims meanwhile did the obvious - facing no commitment from the Indian nation to prove their first and foremost loyalty to the country, they learnt to identify themselves with other Islamic nations. It did not help that there was no firmness in the action plan of the Hindus who succumbed to caste ideologies almost as if following Western predictions by the book. The progressive hindus in fact had become victims of their own ideals - unable to deal with the guilt inducing paradox of the caste system against their proclaimed values of pluralistic tolerance.


The attacks in Mumbai are not a failure of intelligence, or of governments. It is a moral failure of the Hindus in power who do not find it within themselves to say that the caste system is nobody else's business. If the objection is to discrimination - then there is not a single religion existing that does not exercise some form of discrimination or another, some form of sectarianism or another -- and therefore no special apologies are needed from Hindus. Discrimination is human nature. We cannot wish it away. It is subdued only to the extent it is exercised in oneself - irrespective of one's affiliations. It is also the failure of the more informed Hindus to not be able to stand up and tell fellow Hindus and others that the caste system is a functional commitment, not a hierarchical hegemony. The Kshatriya may be higher in the caste order, but he has no power or authority to determine the spiritual fate of a non-Kshatriya - above or below him. In that sense Hinduism is far more individualistic and advanced than any other religion.


Today, Hindus occupying prominent positions in the government are paralysed at the decision making level, by the accusations levelled against Hinduism - most specifically the caste system. It is not lack of knowledge or capability - it is the psyche that has been attacked at its roots that prevents Indian Hindus from taking the required measures to protect themselves, their nation and their dream. A decision is far more powerful when it is executed with a sense of moral righteousness. The mind and the conscience only then cooperate fully at the execution level. The Hindu has been damned at this level. In the aftermath of various threats faced by the country, many excellent reports have been drawn out and several reformist measures have been recommended. But execution has been stalled. Why? Because the fear of the moral fallout has paralysed action. "What if I am accused of being a non-Hindu hater? What if I am accused of wanting India to be a Hindu nation? How can I seek Hinduism since it is by definition primitive - caste system being the foremost example?" So the solution becomes simple, better to pretend to be a victim of other's hatred, rather than lose imagined moral superiority and be accused of hating others. Better unwarranted sympathy than justified anger. This is why India today is in the sad state of decision paralysis, while an American President-elect and ex Secretary of State of USA are more clear cut on what to do under the circumstances.

On a recent TV show, ex Army personnel have openly declared that India can achieve no results from Pakistan, because we do not have any leverage with it. They stated categorically that to get any results from our Muslim trading partners including UAE, the only path is via Washington. What a shameful admission - considering the funds and efforts being expended to maintain a so called 'peace process' with this neighbour. How did we get to such a pitiable state? Our money, our time, our people, our efforts - and yet we cannot proudly assert our right to defend what we have built. Because we have allowed ourselves to be seen as - 'those pagan Hindus, with a primitive caste system, dowry system etc. etc" and we don't throw the opponents' aggressive past in their faces.


The battle has to be fought at the ideological level - Christians and Muslims alike must be reminded that their monotheistic religion must not and cannot be compared with Hinduism. More importantly, this monotheism was not achieved peacefully. Hinduism does not need to twist itself out of shape to become comprehensible to non-Hindus. A temple is not an equivalent of a church or a mosque. A Pundit is not the same as a Father or a Mullah. Unlike the Father or the Mullah who are moral intermediaries bearing moral authority over the lives of fellow christians and muslims, the hindu priest is merely a functional intermediary. He performs the puja on your behalf in the temple - he does not simultaneously lecture you on whether you are intended for hell or heaven or for rebirth. Neither does he tell you what is right or wrong. He recites the scriptures and the interaction stops there. Unlike churches and mosques which are designed for public gathering at predestined timings for followers to listen to sermons, the temples offer no sermons nor do they insist on a devotee's visit. A devotee comes when he hears the call and brings something along to offer the deity. This is why equating the temple with its christian and islamic counterparts has devastated temple sanctity. Hindus now believe that it is their duty to visit the temples and are visiting them without any purpose whatsoever. With thousands of devotees breaking thousands of coconuts and lighting incense sticks, who is to handle the temple premises? In accordance with the new forced trends, the temples are doing away with offerings and traditional practices. And devotees are being asked to stand further and further away from the deity - simply because the structures were never intended to be visited like museums.

It would be best if non Hindus were told just to lay off from judging us by their standards. Till the caste system evolves into a more progressive social dynamic, Hindus must recognise every caste as sacrosanct and not as a characteristic to be damned. And if the Hindu decision maker knows what decision to take, let him learn to take it and execute it with a Fully Clear Conscience and awareness of the consequences. The Jews have achieved this - first with determination followed by economic and military power. But they had only one religion to defend. Our dream is more multi pronged. Nevertheless we are fully capable of showing the world the reality of pluralism and the realisation of our Founding Fathers' dream -- precisely because we are Hindus! We need to throw out the acquired guilt first. The decisions will flow easily thereafter.