India's Daughter

A recent documentary made by BBC, called India’s Daughter, deals with the case of Jyoti Singh, a medical student who was brutally gang raped in Delhi a few years ago. In addition to being raped, she was so severely beaten that she died a few days later. This shocking incidence was reported worldwide and in India it served as a wakeup call to do something about this major blight in the society.

This very well made documentary chronicles the event through multiple interviews and provides a glimpse in the minds of certain members of the society who think of women as available targets, especially if they do not obey strict rules of behavior. It also shows the revulsion felt by a large segment of the society at the brutality of crime, and the brazen way it was committed. Their demand to do something about it comes through loud and clear in this well-balanced documentary.

The Indian government has decided to ban showing of this documentary in the country and may even decide to file a lawsuit against BBC. Although no clear reason is given, the probable one is that it shows India in a bad light and may affect tourism.  Besides that, folks from India have put forth several additional reasons why such an action is justifiable: It gives a platform to one of the rapists who was interviewed for the documentary, it was made by a British woman (not an Indian), and it ignores the fact that there are many other nations that have higher rape statistics than India.

I feel that these objections are not justified.

In terms of showing India in a bad light----this is an old incidence. So if any harm was done to India’s image that was a long time ago, and this documentary is unlikely to do additional damage. Yes it does show the dark side of the Indian society, but it also shows that it is a vibrant and law-abiding democracy where people are allowed to protest in the street and even rapists are given a fair trial. They are not taken to a nearby tree and hung, as would be the case in many countries.

This documentary does provide one of the rapists an opportunity to talk about the incidence and why he and his friends committed such a horrible crime. He comes across remorseless and blames the girl, at least partially, for the rape. Even more frightening than the interview of the rapist are the ones of their lawyers. One of them proclaims that, “We have the best culture. In our culture there is no place for a woman.” In his vocabulary, a woman is someone who is not a lady. The other lawyer says that, “If my daughter engaged in pre-marital activities, I will put petrol on her and set her alight.” Remember, these are lawyers, not criminals.

These interviews are pivotal because without them the power of the film would diminish. They provide a window in their warped minds, and in doing so demonstrate that the root cause for such crimes is the way women are thought of by a certain (significant?) segment of the society---not just the poor slum dwellers but educated professionals---and nothing will change unless that basic issue is addressed.

Many people believe that providing platform to criminals will lead to copycat crimes by others who would want to have their viewpoints broadcasted by the media. That may true for terrorists who have a message to give to the world even if it cost them their lives.  I cannot see why that would be the case for rapists. They are committing crimes in response to their obscene prejudices and impulses, and not to make a statement.  I cannot imagine a copycat rapist saying that: “Aha, if I go through with this rape, BBC will interview me and I will appear in a documentary while I wait for my death sentence to be carried out.”

Yes, a British woman, not an Indian, made this documentary.  My question is: Why didn’t an Indian make it? In the US, where we have our set of problems, such as gun violence, a person like Michael Moore makes a film with as much bite as India’s Daughter, showing America in a very bad light, so to speak. Such films are not banned; people watch them and make their own decisions. Why are folks in India so afraid of films showing their dark side?

Finally, and this is somewhat bizarre----I have seen some people in India dredging up statistics of rape in various countries and arguing that it is worse in other places. So, there should be documentaries about rapes committed over there, not in India. South Africa, England, America, and Australia are mentioned as those high on the list.

India’s Daughter is not a United Nations report on rape worldwide; it is about a ghastly incidence that drew worldwide attention. Filmmakers decide on a topic based on how compelling and interesting is the story, not based on statistics for the type of incidence covered by it. That’s why they make a documentary about people getting killed by guns in US, even when there are many countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Honduras) where the likelihood of dying by gun is much higher.  

In any case, would arguing that the situation in a worse in another country take away what is going on in our own? Also, do these people believe that rape statistics truly represent what is going on in a country? What percentage of rapes in India do they think get reported?

Interestingly, by banning the film, Indian government has made this documentary more popular than it would have been otherwise. It is available on YouTube despite government’s effort to stop it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. This is not the first time BBC has gotten into trouble with the Indian government. I remember another incidence. That was in the 70s, and the documentary (series) was called Phantom India. Made by the famous filmmaker Louis Malle, this series dealt with topics that intrigued him---such as mysticism, rituals and tribes in India. The Indian government claimed that it perpetuated bad image of India, and asked BBC to get out when they insisted on showing it. PBS subsequently aired it in US (there was no YouTube or even a video recorder to see it any other way) and I saw the entire series. It was excellent. Interestingly, the Indian government then asked PBS to air a documentary on India they would like to show---shiny buildings, factories, and happy people sort---and I was selected as one of the persons to watch it. I did and gave my honest opinion that the government’s version of India was also not the full story.
 

The Great Hoax

It was the dead of night and yet the Iqaluit airport in the remote Canadian province of Nunavut was humming with activities. Airplanes after airplanes were landing creating chaos for the immigration authorities. Hundreds of people from all different countries were pouring in---all in absolute secrecy.

The visitors took pains to hide their identities, because many were quite famous and they did not want their presence in this far corner to be revealed to the world. Those curious enough to ask them who they were got a curt reply. “We are here for a convention of rose growers.”

In reality, they were scientists and the real purpose of their visit was quite sinister.

They had travelled to this remote area, where there would be few watchful eyes, for one reason---to create a hoax of such magnitude that it would blow your imagination.  They wanted to fabricate a story that the world was going to suffer from a major climate change because of our actions, and unless something was done, the consequences would be catastrophic.

They were pretty sure that this hoax would crate a major upsurge in the funding they received, thus setting them up for life. The only thing was---all this had to be done in secrecy. If the cover were to be blown, that would be the end of their careers.

The venue for the gathering was carefully chosen. It was near the airport, so as to prevent the scientists from roaming around and creating suspicion. A tent city was erected, covered in camouflage material. This way, the prying eye of satellites would be fooled.

The hoax convention began with an oath to keep all this absolutely quiet. Even spouses would not be informed of what they were planning to do. Nobody outside this small group of 10,000 well-disciplined scientists would be allowed in the secret, and a leak would be contained by any means possible.  A secret handshake was established to ensure each person knew if the other person was in the secret or not.

Details of how the hoax would be perpetrated were revealed.  The temperature measuring devices around the world would be tempered so that they show rising temperatures.  The measurements of Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be similarly inflated. Computer models would be created to show what a dire state our earth is in. Several medial channels and scientific magazines will be bribed to run fake stories. Prominent politicians like Al Gore would be bought off so he becomes the spokes person for the hoax.

Concern was expressed in terms of the vigilant people of Fox channel and how they could blow the cover. Also, several extremely bright people of the Republican Party, such as Jim Inhofe, were listed as those to be feared. Unless the scientists were careful, these people would know something was wrong.  

Determined to make this a success, scientists filed out of the tent city and went back to the airport for their flights home.

And thus The Great Hoax was born.

PS: The hoax had a good run. For several years ordinary folks were petrified by what was coming. Fortunately, earth cooperated and people could feel something was wrong even without the scientists having to use false data. However, all this came to an end. As they feared, the Republicans, led by Inhofe, found out about the hoax. He came to his conclusion using brilliant logic about god and why would he let us humans alter climate. Fox News played its role in spreading the truth. The 10,000 scientists were shamed beyond belief. Their research funding dried up and they were subjected to witch trials, which were reinstated as a way to prevent future hoaxes.

Real You

Recently I have been reading books on our quest for reality.  The first book is “Our Mathematical Universe: My quest for the ultimate nature of reality,” by Max Tegmark, which I had introduced in a previous post. The second is “Quantum Reality,” by Nick Herbert.

As I had mentioned in my previous post, an important point Max makes is that reality is not just some illusion created by our senses, but it exists independently of us. He calls that “External Reality” while what we perceive is “Internal Reality.”

External Reality is where the mystery lies and the best we can do is to create mathematical structures to describe what it could be. An important tool for probing into External Reality is quantum mechanics. This is where careful and extreme experimentation is required to tease out some indicators of what lies underneath.

There is a level in-between External and Internal Realities. Max calls it “Consensus Reality.”  This is the shared description of the physical world that observers agree on. These descriptions are free from illusions our senses create. So the cover of a book can be described as red, even though a colorblind person will not see the color red. This is because there is a consensus on its color being red.

I believe the same three level structure can be use to describe you, or me.

There is a mid-level description of what you are:  “You a medical doctor, who is affluent and is interested in playing golf. You are even tempered and donate to charitable causes.” Like Consensus Reality, this is the description most will agree on (and you will carefully cultivate).

However, some others may not see you that way. They may have their own interpretation of what you are, based on their biases and perceptions, much like the Internal Reality described above. They may think, “Here is a pompous ass who thinks no end of himself.”

Then there is the “Real You.” The “Real You,” like External Reality, is mysterious and visible only under extreme circumstances. The “Real You” is what makes you exhibit different behavior patterns when you are not being observed than when you are. This is so much like what quantum mechanics says.  As discussed in the second book I am reading, an object, such as an electron, behaves like a particle when observed, and like a wave when not observed. Almost like a human!

Clearly, the “Real You” is different from the version you exhibit and one that is perceived. However, that may not be all. In fact, there may be attributes of “Real You” that even you are not aware of.

Freedom Index

We all cherish freedom; it is a major factor among those that define happiness. Otherwise why would we take freedom away from a criminal as a way of punishing him? Why would citizens living under an oppressive government rebel?

However, one does not have to be a criminal or live in an oppressive country to experience the challenges of not being free, or the joy of freedom. We all have restrictions on what we are or not able to do at any stage of life.

If you take a simplistic viewpoint, there are five factors that define personal freedom: Financial ability, physical ability, available free time, dependency on others, and others dependent on you. These factors change over lifetime.  

Unless you are born in a rich family, the financial ability rises over time, reaching the peak as you retire. If you have planned your finances carefully, the financial ability continues through retirement.

The physical ability starts out being low, reaches a peak in your twenties and then goes through a slow decline the rest of your life (depressing). The availability of free time starts out high but then starts declining, reaching a bottom when you hit middle age. It rises again as you retire, staying high for the rest of your life.

Dependency on others also curtails freedom. It begins low (low=dependent) as you start your life, and are dependent on your parents. It also ends on a low note toward the later years as you become dependent on others, most likely your children. Finally, if you are taking care of others, whether it is your children or your parents, there is some curtailment of your freedom. That comes in two phases, one initially, when you are taking care of your children, the other when you hit your middle age and are taking care of parents.

We can combine all these factors and create a “Freedom Index” that indicate how free we are at different stages of life. I have done that by assigning values zero to ten for the first three factors (financial ability, physical ability, and availability of free time), and from minus ten to zero for the last two (dependency on others and others dependent on you). Then I calculated “Freedom Index” by simply adding my estimated scores for all the factors. Here are the results.

The Freedom Index thus calculated indicates that the best time of your life from the perspective of freedom to do things is the 60s to early 70s when you have the financial ability, physical ability, plenty of free time and the absence of dependency, in both directions. These are the golden years. There are other times, such as your early twenties, late forties, or the last few years of your life when there is some freedom but because of one factor or another, not as much as during the golden years.

This analysis gets really interesting if you consider that people live longer than the mid eighties as I have assumed in the above analysis. Let us see what happens if people live to mid-nighties, as is becoming more common these days.

As can be seen, the extra decade thus lived is not necessarily the one with most freedom. In fact, those years are likely to be spent in being dependent on others. In addition, your financial ability may also take a hit in that extra decade because you did not plan to live that long.

Most importantly, the arrival of extra long life creates a hit on your golden years because you end up taking care of your parents for extra ten years and that period squarely coincides with time you are supposed to be enjoying life to the fullest.  The period of maximum freedom, in that case reduces from fifteen years (as was the case when people lived to mid-eighties) to five. So, while we celebrate the fact that we all live longer, we need to be aware that the quality of life gets sacrificed for quantity. 

One needs to keep in mind that the above analysis is for freedom and not necessarily for happiness.

All of the factors in the above analysis, with the exception of physical ability, have an ambiguous relationship with happiness. Money does help, but not determine, how happy you are. So, it is with available time. For some, that is a curse rather then blessing. Although they have time to do what they want, having too much of it can bring unhappiness. Dependency on others brings lack of freedom but also love and caring. The same is true, in reverse, when you are taking care of someone. The lack of freedom is compensated by deep satisfaction that comes with nurturing and having done ones duty.

Reality

I just finished reading one of the most fascinating books I have come across this year. This book, “Our Mathematical Universe: My quest for the ultimate nature of reality,” by Max Tegmark, an MIT professor of physics, is full of great insights regarding our universe and the nature of reality. While I cannot do justice in a short Blog Post what he says in a four hundred-page book, I thought some of his nuggets of wisdom might provoke thoughts in your mind.

“If we assume that reality exists independently of humans, then for a description to be complete, it must be well defined according to nonhuman entities—aliens or supercomputers, say—that lack any understanding of human concepts. Put differently, such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of any human baggage like “particle,” or other English words.”

The first point he is making is that reality is not just some illusion created by our senses, but it exists independently of us. He calls the reality from our perspective as similar to what a frog sees/feels if living in a well. That is not what a bird will see. It will see what is equivalent to a reality that exists beyond what we sense. (He actually has a third level between the bird and the frog perspectives---one he calls interrelated consensus perspective, but let’s not go there.)

The second point he makes is that in the bird perspective (reality independent of humans) things like a particle should be expressible without using the word “particle”. In one of my earlier Blog Posts, I had discussed what would happen if we did not have a name attached to us (December 2013). This is a similar situation; here he calls the names for things---a human baggage.

“All physics theories have two components: mathematical equations and “baggage”---words that explain how the equations are connected to what we observe and intuitively understand. When we derive the consequences of a theory, we introduce new concepts and words for them, such as protons, atoms, molecules, cells and stars, because they are convenient.  However, it is we humans who create these concepts; in principle, everything could be calculated without this baggage.”

He then goes on to hypothesize that if you remove that human baggage, we are left with nothing but mathematics.

“Atoms are made of elementary particles, which are purely mathematical structures in the sense that their only properties are mathematical properties.”

“If you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. Nothing else has a baggage-free description.”

So, what he conjectures is that not only is our universe explainable by mathematics, it actually is nothing but a grand mathematical structure. 

Bizarre, eh? He expects us to feel that way.

“Evolution has endowed us with intuition only for those everyday aspects of physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, leading to the prediction that whenever we use technology to glimpse reality beyond human scale, our evolved intuition should break down.”

Now I know why I have such a hard time understanding Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or the concept that the universe is nothing but a gigantic mathematical structure. J