Connect with us

Opinion

The physics of our lives

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

🕒

on

IST

By Basab Das gupta

If we observe the life of a randomly selected person, chances are that it progresses according to a daily pattern during the week. He/she gets up in the morning, takes a shower, eats something, goes to work, completes the assignments at work, comes home, has dinner, watches TV or spends time on the computer for a while and then goes to bed. The weekends are set aside for shopping and social activities including travel.
This cycle continues with some minor variations depending on seasonal activities and other details. Of course, the routine changes occasionally in a more substantial way when there is a life-changing event such as marriage, birth of a child, new job, etc., but we re-establish a new routine quickly. We feel very comfortable with such a routine. We get stressed out when events happen randomly or unpredictably outside our routine.
We human beings are “creatures of habits”. When we lose our jobs through retirement or lay-off or lose our spouses through death or divorce, we often lament by saying “I miss my job” or “I miss my wife”. What we really miss is the routine we developed around our job or spouse. The key to feel stable and comfortable again is to develop a new routine without the job or spouse. Some people are even afraid to retire because they do not want to break their routine.
The routine arises from the need to earn money to provide for food, housing, clothes and other necessities of life and need for companionship which leads to marriage and family.
Interspersed between all such activities are our thought processes which involve all kinds of emotions. Whenever we are not doing anything physically, we are thinking and feeling some of these emotions. Thinking is often required by our jobs as well, but at other times we are simply thinking, perhaps incoherently about all aspects of our life: our wish to purchase something, our analysis of some event, romantic thoughts about a person of the opposite sex, an urge to create something, worry about our children, some weekend plan and so on. In fact, we think even while we are doing some physical activities.
It seems that life is nothing but a periodic repetition of activities immersed in a sea of thoughts and emotions. The same description of life can even be applied to people who live unconventional lives – monks, panhandlers, prisoners locked up for life, astronauts in a long-term mission on a spaceship; they all follow a certain routine. Even if one is confined to an enclosed space where there is no interaction with the outside world, one’s “biological clock” kicks in and one follows a routine.
When we think about life we realise that most of the things we do in life revolve around earning money and enjoying the fruits of our labor. However, I would like to note that all the needs we satisfy with money – the need for food, clothes and shelter and other amenities and even physical needs – is really to follow the requirements of our bodies. If our body did not change at all and retained a fixed shape without food then this whole concept of education, jobs, marriage etc. for sake of catering to the needs of our bodies becomes irrelevant.
However, we will still be active. We may still want to go to school to broaden our knowledge base. We may still want to work, to not only keep ourselves busy, but to test if we can correctly apply knowledge learned from books. We may still want to take on a mate just for companionship. Most significantly, we would still develop a daily routine and have a life. My point is that life is not about earning money to sustain our body, building wealth or raising children; it is simply a repetitive set of activities and it does not matter what those activities are.
Let us now examine why this is the case. The fact that the earth spins around its own axis at a rate of one revolution in 24 hours and gives rise to day and night automatically introduces a fundamental periodicity in how we spend our life. There is an additional periodicity with a period of one year because the earth revolves around the sun within a period of one year. This also gives rise to the concept of seasons. In addition, we also introduced a weekly periodicity in our life simply by dividing a year into fifty-two weeks.
However, unlike a day or a year, there is nothing fundamental about the duration of week, such as its correlation with positions of stars and planets. In fact, a week, as we know it, consists of seven days; different cultures have experimented with different durations of a week, anywhere from four days to ten days.
The period is fundamentally determined by the motion of the planets i.e. a 24-hour period, modulated by seasonal and annual variations. Can there be life anywhere without periodicity? Interestingly enough, each planet spins around its own axis as well as revolving around other stars. Otherwise, they would have been attracted by some other mass and be destroyed in the resulting collision. So, even if there is life on some other planet, it is logical to conclude that “life” on that planet also follows a periodic routine based on its rotational motions.
I would now like to argue, based on an analogy, that this periodicity, in fact, gives life a structure and stability. My analogy comes from my education in physics. I view life as something that can be modeled as a (one-dimensional) solid. A solid consists of a periodic arrangement of positive ions submerged either in a “sea” of electrons in case of metals or interacting together while sharing the outer electrons in case of an insulator. Similarly, life is just a periodic temporal repetition of a certain routine.
The routine is generated in one of two ways: i) by ourselves, using our thoughts and emotions or ii) dictated to us by some plan which does not involve our input (for example, in the case of monks and prisoners). In case of a solid, it is the periodicity of a lattice structure and the interaction of the positive ions and electrons that give the rigidity of a solid substance. Similarly, a routine with a periodicity which is determined by some plan or thought process gives life a structure.
Just like the interaction between electrons and positive nuclei, there has to be interaction between our thoughts (or a plan dictated to us) and our actions in order for life to have structure. My model has to be a one-dimensional solid because life flows only in one dimension i.e. with time. The ones who do not have such a routine or do irrational things unrelated to a thought process or emotion do not have a life; they can easily fall apart much like an amorphous non-crystalline substance.
A solid can be either a metal or an insulator. Similarly, life can be more spontaneous or more rigid. In the first case, there is room for lots of different thoughts and emotions, even though we are following a certain routine; this situation is analogous to a sea of electrons which can undergo various excitations (such as plasma oscillations in a metal). For a rigid life on the other hand, one just follows the routine without too much thought; this is analogous to the situation of an insulator where the electrons are constrained to follow certain orbits.
If we intentionally make our life completely random or, at least, non-periodic, say by eating and sleeping at irregular hours and doing completely different physical activities on different days, it is likely that our body would not be able to sustain it and at some point, break down. Our body and its biological clock are probably synchronised to the rotation of earth in some way because the evolution of the body from sperm to embryo to a fully mature baby takes place on a spinning platform.
The bottom line is that our life has a periodicity and it is related to the (rotational) motion of earth and presumably indirectly to the motions of other planets and stars as well. A logical question at this point would be if the cyclic nature of joy and sorrow in our lives is also related to such motions as well, thus lending credence to the subject of astrology. I do not know the answer.

 

The Kashmir Monitor is the fastest growing newspaper as well as digitial platform covering news from all angles.

Advertisement
Loading...
Comments

Opinion

Not in the Mahatma’s name

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Apoorvanand

The recent uproar over the glorification of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, NathuramGodse, by the BharatiyaJanata Party’s Bhopal candidate Pragya Singh Thakur has forced her party to tick her off. It should be a solace for us that there is at least one non-negotiable in Indian politics, that the political cost of the celebration of the murder of the Mahatma is formidably high! But now we would be told to let the matter rest as she has been chided even by her mentors.

Let us look at the implication of this approach, that Ms. Thakur, sans this statement, should be acceptable to us as a potential representative in Parliament. She continues to be the ‘symbol of Hinduism’, as she claimed Prime Minister NarendraModi had said of her. Our satisfaction over the condemnation of Ms. Thakur makes us forget that she is being audaciously presented as the most fitting answer to secular politics, which holds that a person accused of attacks on Muslims cannot be a people’s representative in India.

 

The idea that a Hindu can never indulge in a terror act is, in fact, another way of saying that terror acts are always committed by non-Hindus. Or, by Pakistan, which for BJP leaders is a proxy for Muslims. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, while talking about the Samjhauta Express blast case acquittals, claimed that it was unimaginable to accept that Hindus could be involved in such acts, and that he believed that in all such crimes there was the hand of Pakistan. A crime has been committed, and since the Hindu suspects cannot (being Hindus) do it, it can only be Muslims even if they are not caught — this is the underlying assumption.

It is this theory which is being thrown at us by the BJP by presenting Ms. Thakur as its choice for the electorate of Bhopal. It has another sinister aspect. She was selected knowing well that she could not be a choice for Muslims. Her selection is therefore a message to Muslims that by not voting for her, they disregard the sentiments of Hindus, thus showing intolerance towards the majority.

By supporting her, the ‘symbol of Hinduism’, they have a chance to endear themselves to the Hindus. If they don’t, they would always be a suspect.

This argument is not new. Many pundits, while accepting that Mr.Modi was a divisive figure, urged Indians to choose him as he was the best bet for the economic development of India. So, can Muslims be so sectarian as to think only about themselves while the greater national interest is at stake?

The swift and determined move by the BJP to reject her statement on Godse is a clever ploy to make this issue irrelevant while judging her. It is as if we are asked to judge Godse, setting aside the act of murder of Gandhi by him. There are ‘respectable’ people who feel that Godse spoilt his case by murdering the Mahatma. They regret this folly as they believe that there was strong merit in his ideological stance. According to them, he rightly opposed the Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, his anger at the dangerous friendliness of Gandhi towards Pakistan is correct, and his impatience with the unwise and impractical pacifism of Gandhi is to be understood if we want to make India strong.

We are asked to understand that there was a reason Godse was forced to kill Gandhi. We are asked to not treat him as a simple criminal. He was driven by high ideas. To make him a man of ideas, he is constantly humanised. We have seen over the years people talking about his childhood, his education, his editorship. Gandhi must have done something really horrible to provoke a thoughtful human being to turn into an assassin. If anything, they imply, he was a just assassin!

So, we are asked to move away from the trivia, that is the act of the murder, to the substantive, the issues raised by Nathuram in his ‘brave defence’ in the court, which had moved people to tears even then.

The RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS), unlike the Islamic State and the Maoists, understands it well that an individual and identifiable act of violence makes it abhorrent and repulsive for the masses, whereas anonymous acts of violence are always more palatable. It was therefore important for Savarkar to distance himself from his disciple, Godse, to remain respectable. For the RSS it was necessary to disown Godse to be able to keep working on the majoritarian ideas he shared with or had learnt from Savarkar and the RSS. No known RSS hand soils his hands with blood; yet it is the politics of the RSS, not at all different from Godse’s, which makes blood flow.

Gandhi had said again and again that it would be better for him to die if India were to become inhospitable to Muslims. He was talking to those who were objecting to the recitation from the Koran at his prayer meetings. Death he could accept but not the narrowing of his heart! Neither bowing to threats or force! In the same invocation, he said, if you ask me to recite the Gita at gun point, I would refuse to obey you.

Gandhi told his audience, your heart is also large. Don’t constrict it. It is this challenge which needs to be accepted. It requires immense bravery of intelligence and humanity to be able to hear Gandhi. This intelligence would tell us that the distancing from the murder of the Mahatma by the co-travellers of Godse is in fact a strategy to enlarge the space for majoritarian ideas and draw more and more Hindus towards them, thus making Gandhi irrelevant while keeping his facade decorated.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Why I want Pragya Thakur to win

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Saba Naqvi

Regardless of whether NarendraModi remains Prime Minister or not I want terror accused Pragya Thakur to win from Bhopal. The esteemed leadership of India’s pre-eminent political party chose a terror accused as a candidate and they must endure her tenure as MP.

Pragya may be a poisonous vendor of hate and violence but she is not a hypocrite. Ever since she spoke her mind on describing NathuramGodse, the individual who shot MK Gandhi to death, as a patriot, the BJP national leadership has claimed to be disturbed. The Prime Minister spoke up after her statement, saying, he would never forgive her for what she had said and the party stated that it had initiated disciplinary action against her.

 

But by the time the party took this position, many members of the BJP had come up with twisted arguments somehow justifying Pragya’s validation of the assassin of a figure many revere as a Mahatma or Great Soul. Party members exposed their own problematic ideological heritage that included non-participation in the freedom movement led by Gandhi. Some of them could not help but reveal their own natural impulse to drop the veneer of falsehood and come clean on how they do indeed believe that Godse was a patriot despite having killed Gandhi.

The Godse remark in just two days exposed the ideological underbelly of the ruling party that does indeed have members who believe that Gandhi was a villain who loved Muslims and Pakistan. That’s why Godse, by his own account in a famous trial, shot him. A must-read for those who wish to engage with this debate is the book titled “The Men Who Killed Gandhi” by ManoharMalgonkar.

Seventy-one years after that crime on January 30, 1948, we have come to the point where a candidate contesting in an election for Parliament embraces the Godse world view. What’s more, a member of Modi’s council of ministers, AnantkumarHegde, endorsed her position. The MP from Karnataka had earlier kicked up a storm when he had said that “we are here to change the Constitution”. Yes, the same Constitution he took an oath to protect.

Hegde’s also received a show-cause notice to explain his position and on May 17 BJP president Amit Shah said the party’s disciplinary committee would submit a report on the matter in 10 days, after the election verdict, that is. There was more: the BJP media cell chief in Madhya Pradesh, the state from where Pragya is contesting, was brazen enough to say that Gandhi was the father of the nation of Pakistan. The BJP suspended him.

So how do we read the ideological contortions ever since Pragya uttered the “Godse is a patriot” words? One could say that the BJP is trying to occupy the space of both extreme and moderate in a national ideological pendulum that has shifted right-wards. It’s not a bad ploy—the ideological family plays to the more core beliefs, that are to be revealed step by step, and just in case some voters find them unpalatable, there are the “reasonable” elements as well.

And, voila! Modi becomes a moderate who is being stern with the fringe! That is a useful projection at a time when there is the possibility of needing some allies post-23 May. The BJP has made this ideological journey before, of being all things to all men. Earlier, former Prime Minister AtalBihari Vajpayee was offered up as the moderate to LK Advani, the architect of the Ram temple movement, who brought the BJP to national prominence. Today Modi today is the moderate who is speaking up against the hardliners, who are called “fringe” by those who believe it’s all part of a great national purpose.

It’s not. The “fringe” has been mainstream for some years now. Much before Pragya was presented to the nation as a candidate for parliament, the BJP leadership chose an unabashed Muslim-hating monk of a religious order to be the chief minister of India’s most populous state. All these debates about ‘moderate’ and ‘hardliner’ are a farce designed to make the BJP constituency feel better about themselves. It’s part of the good cop/ bad cop tactic.

To conclude, therefore, I want a terror accused to win, just so that we can, as a nation, get a reality check on where we have landed up. And just in case someone wants to ask me about whether I am afraid, here is my reply: I am so certain about the courage of my convictions, that there is no fear, although I do feel some shame for those who have tied themselves into knots over something about which there should have been no ambiguity. Bring on Pragya and let’s see what happens next.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The ‘unpeople’ of India

The Kashmir Monitor

Published

on

By Abdul Khaliq

Muslims now have to live with the bleak truth that the most powerful political party and its ideological parent, with tentacles spread across the country, are pathologically hostile to Muslims.

I fear for our future as a secular, multicultural country that once celebrated a richness of culture and tradition. Till not long ago we affirmed our common humanity even as we celebrated our differences. Our nation represented diversity, kindness, compassion and a revulsion of extremist views. But, over time, our collective souls have been deadened by violence, deepening communal and caste divides and the most perverse thinking. The cosmopolitan spirit has been throttled by hyper nationalism, populism and a deep distrust of the liberal values of tolerance and inclusion. A creeping majoritarianism is spreading across the land.

 

In this overheated, protracted election season, Muslims are up against it, caught between a rock and a hard place. Theirs is an Orwellian world where they are the “unpeople”— a term coined by George Orwell in his scary masterpiece 1984, to define those whose names and existence had been erased because they had incurred “Big Brother’s” ire. Muslims now have to live with the bleak truth that the most powerful political party and its ideological parent, with tentacles spread across the country, are pathologically hostile to Muslims. What makes their plight infinitely worse, is the fact that even the major allegedly secular party has consigned Muslims to social invisibility. Can one trust a party that is afraid to even allude to the Muslims’ problems, let alone address them?

When the PM evoked the 1984 mass slaughter of Sikhs and quoted Rajiv Gandhi’s infamous justification about the inevitable effect of the falling of a big tree, why did the Congress president not hit back by recalling the 2002 Gujarat riots and Modi’s Newtonian observation justifying the killing of hundreds of Muslims as a reaction to an action? He refrained, not for any ethical reason, but simply for fear of being seen as empathetic to Muslims and their problems and of equating the two tragedies. Caught between the flagrant hostility of the right-wing and the fraudulent concern of the secular front, Muslims are India’s outcasts.

In today’s India, where all issues across the political spectrum are seen through the lens of identity politics, Muslims are vilified for their custom, dress and tradition. They are physically attacked for the food they eat, discriminated against in employment, housing, and even civic amenities, and, they are routinely victimised by law-enforcement authorities simply for being Muslim. Social media is awash with the most hateful, stereotypical portrayal of Muslims as terrorist sympathisers, baby producing factories and worse. Although India has been the home of Islam and its adherents for much more than a millennium, Muslims today are constantly pilloried about their loyalty to the nation.

All assessments about Muslims are universalised, in black and white and deeply problematic. In a conversation with two CRPF sub-inspectors who have recently returned from Kashmir (I did not reveal that I was Muslim), I was told that “these Muslims are a nuisance as even their women throw stones at us.” Please note that the stone-throwing by the disgruntled Kashmiris is perceived as a common trait of Muslims — all 190 million of them. Their other complaints were that Muslims support Pakistan and insist on eating only halal meat. When I asked how the civil unrest in Kashmir could be resolved, I got an answer that stunned me: “Make sure that the police force in Kashmir is recruited only from the Shia community and they will teach these Sunnis a lesson!” How well have the British taught us the art of “divide and rule” and of polarising communities! The conversation filled me with anguish at the gratuitous distrust and hatred for Muslims. The animosity runs deep and is expressed by ordinary citizens in a matter-of-fact tone that is unnerving.

I recall clearly the sense of cautious optimism among Muslims when NarendraModi assumed power in 2014. His swearing-in was a strikingly symbolic moment, epitomised by the presence of the Pakistani PM that signalled hope of rapprochement with Pakistan (Indian Muslims know through experience that their well-being is linked to this crucial relationship). The PM represented a more decisive polity that promised an equitable social order expressed most eloquently in the Socratic slogan, “Sabkasaathsabkavikas”. This slogan encapsulated this nation’s foremost mission of fostering social solidarity based on the principle that every human being matters. Minorities felt reassured by the PM’s emphatic assertion in 2015 that “my government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly.” He repeatedly made appeals to preserve our core values of diversity, tolerance and plurality, calling on Hindus and Muslims to work together to fight poverty instead of fighting one another. His stunning embrace of Nawaz Sharif on Christmas Day 2015 filled everyone with hope.

On the ground, however, India began witnessing a deepening cultural mutation as vigilante squads terrorised and lynched Muslims in the name of protecting the cow, launched “gharwapsi” campaigns that have all but ended the freedom to choose one’s faith and used “love jihad” to stifle any kind of solidarity between the two communities. Minorities began to believe that the present dispensation’s aim is to convert India into the Hindu Rashtra of Hindutva where Muslims and Christians would live as second-class citizens. The current election rhetoric has only exacerbated those fears. The BJP LokSabha candidate for Barabanki boasted that “NarendraModi has made attempts to break the morale of Muslims. Vote for Modi if you want to destroy the breed of Muslims.”

We are on the cusp of having a new government at the Centre. Opinion polls and the most reliable — the bookies — predict victory for the NDA, but with a reduced majority. Ironically, the return of Modi as PM is the best hope for peace within the country and the neighbourhood. Imran Khan was right when he said that only Modi could help resolve Kashmir. He is the only leader with the power to rein in the lunatics whose purpose in life is to polarise communities and engage in eternal war with Pakistan. In any case, the new government’s first task would be to combat the overpowering atmosphere of distrust and hate bedevilling society which constitutes the foremost threat to the nation, more so than terrorism. The creation of a truly secular society free of prejudice and discrimination must be the prime mission.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Kashmir Monitor and receive notifications of new stories by email.

Join 1,010,376 other subscribers

Archives

May 2019
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Advertisement