Is Sharing A Private Conversation the Same As Making It Public?

Is sharing a private conversation the same as making it public? A few days back I wrote a blog post that asked whether or not confidentiality was implied in a conversation. I had abstracted the problem from a real-life incident, and I tried to answer two different but related questions in that post. Firstly, 'is confidentiality implied in a conversation', and secondly, does a person commit a moral wrong by sharing the facts and details of a conversation. I argued that human society is made possible by the aspect of sharing and that humans share ideas and emotions too. As communicative beings, we share our 'lives' with friends and family, and it includes disclosing (in parts or full) the conversations we had with other persons. I called this 'life-sharing'. From this, I concluded that confidentiality wasn't implied in a conversation and persons who shared a private conversation with others didn't commit a moral wrong. However, I conflated two concepts in my conclusion i.e. I identified the act of sharing sth with the act of making sth public. I want to revisit this 'identity'. I must revisit this alleged identity because if sharing sth isn't the same as making sth public then the latter can't use the defense of the former to justify itself and the ethics of 'going public' has to be established on a whole new theoretical ground.

Sharing refers to the act of 'using, occupying or enjoying sth jointly with others'. In the case of conversation, it refers to the use of information jointly with others. Also, we share sth within a circle of intimates, hence it's a personal, or private, act. We have already established the tenability of conversation-sharing. Thus, we may turn our attention to the problem of 'make public'. Is making public the contents of a conversation the same as sharing it? Unlike the verb 'sharing', 'make public' is an idiom that has a larger field of meaning depending upon the context of use. One of the meanings of 'make public' is to 'make something known that was a secret before'. Even though the idiom has other meanings, most of them share this basic connotation i.e. it refers to the exposure of a secret. To 'make public' sth, it has to be a secret. The secret is defined as 'sth not known', or 'sth not meant to be known by others'. One of the synonyms of the adjective 'secret' is confidential. In the last post, I had argued that confidentiality (or secrecy) isn't implied in a conversation. Ipso facto, one can't make a conversation public because it was neither a secret nor was it protected by a code of confidentiality. Therefore, sharing a private conversation isn't the same as making it public because conversation doesn't imply confidentiality whereas 'make public' assumes the content is secretive in nature. Conversations aren't protected by confidentiality and those 'conversations' protected by the code of confidentiality belongs to a different class of human discourse that shouldn't be confused with the normal human conversations. 

Is Confidentiality Implied In A Conversation?

Is confidentiality implied in a conversation? A few days back I read a news piece online. A famous cricketer had sent a woman unsolicited messages over a popular social media platform. The woman posted the screenshots of the messages online, wondering why a celebrity would message her out of the blue. The messages were neither vulgar in content nor offensive. It seems as if the woman has dismissed the man’s advances and I hope he takes it in stride and bows out with grace. My intention is not to comment on this event per se but I am interested in abstracting the deeper problem that this episode raises: is confidentiality implied in a conversation?

It's beyond the scope of a blog post to discuss at length the philosophical implications of the question. Therefore, I will discuss only a section of it. Is a person in the wrong if he/she makes public the details of a private conversation? If I conclude that a person has committed a moral wrong by making public the contents of a private conversation, it means that there is an implicit agreement of confidentiality in all conversations. On the other hand, if I conclude that a person hasn't committed a moral wrong by making public the contents of a private conversation, then it means that there isn't an implicit agreement of confidentiality in conversations.

The standard definition of conversation is 'it's an informal talk between two or more people'. The online chat and group messages come under the rubric of conversation. As an informal talk, a conversation happens between either friends or acquaintances. The friendliness, or the familiarity between the participants, provide the conversation its informality.  Since it's defined as an informal talk, it's marked by a lack of rules. However, to think that conversations are devoid of any rules is unrealistic. Even though rules aren't explicitly stated, context and circumstances provide us with norms of behavior. The question is whether or not confidentiality one of the norms of behavior in conversations. Let me remind you, unlike other norms, the norm of confidentiality is invoked after the conversation has ended. If confidentiality is a norm of conversation, then the participants in a conversation are bound by it even after the conversation has ended.

Is confidentiality a norm of conversation? As an informal talk between friends or relatives, confidentiality isn't a norm of conversation, unless stated otherwise. As social beings, we converse with each other as a part of our social life. One of the hallmarks of social life is the act of sharing. It's the aspect of sharing that builds the bond of society between a group of people. The aspect of sharing isn't restricted to the sharing of material alone. Humans share emotions and ideas too with each other. Through the sharing of our emotions and ideas with our friends and family, we share a part of our lives with them, figuratively speaking. The social sharing of 'life' with our friends and family involves disclosing, in parts or full, the facts and details of conversations we had with other people. As communicative beings, the greater part of our lives is carried out through talks. If confidentiality was the norm of every conversation, then we wouldn't be able to socially share our lives with others because the 'sharing' would be insensible without the context. An example that supports my argument is the 'confidentiality clause' found in the agreements signed by employees to their employers. These clauses make it mandatory for employees not to disclose certain types of information they encounter during the course of their work. Here, confidentiality isn't a norm but a rule of conversation, and the breaking of the clause after agreeing to it will invite legal actions against the erring employee. If confidentiality was a norm of conversation, these separate clauses would be superficial and unnecessary.

Therefore, the tentative conclusion is that confidentiality isn't a norm of conversation and a person isn't in the wrong if he/she makes public the details of a conversation. However, if the persons involved in the conversation has asked each other not to disclose the details of the conversation, then it would be morally wrong for anyone to break the agreement (in the absence of rules, the norms rule but in the presence of rules, the norms must concede).

Two Figures of the Colonial: The Consistent and The Paradox

Rick Braithwaite's To Sir With Love has a memorable line, describing the state of the author in the postwar British society. The author discovers that the racial discrimination he faces is the result of being a 'British without being a Briton'. As a historian, my interest is piqued by this sentence.

1. How does someone become British without being a Briton?
2. What does it mean to be British without being a Briton?

Braithwaite was born in Guyana, an island nation in the Caribbeans. A black man by race, his ancestors were captured from Africa by the British slave traders and employed in the plantations. Braithwaite was raised British by his parents. He was English-educated and read the high literature of Shakespeare, Shelley and the rest of the canon. He got his master's degree in electrical engineering and worked in the oil fields of Aruba. Later, he migrated to British isles and served as an airman in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. Soon after the general demobilization, he started searching for jobs in Britain. To his shock and horror, he found racial discrimination instead. Nobody was eager to employ a black man, a qualified electrical engineer, over and above the whites. Braithwaite was as British as any other white man was, except for his skin colour. He fought for the British and its allies in the Second World War because he earnestly believed in the ideal of the British Commonwealth. During the war, as the author testifies, he didn't face the racism of any kind. He had forgotten about the colour of his skin as it became inconsequential in the defence of the realm. However, once the war concluded and the danger of Nazism passed away, the old prejudices surfaced again, in a society that was being rebuilt from the foundations. The presence of other races infuriated the native British and made them feel anxious about their place in postwar Britain. This anxiety was most pronounced on the 'problem' of racial miscegenation (Braithwaite was in love with an English colleague of his and they couldn't reveal their relationship to their colleagues because of the opprobrium it would invite). The native British couldn't accept the fact that non-whites could be as British as the whites. In a certain sense, the refusal to acknowledge the non-whites as equal is also their refusal to acknowledge the effects of the history they created i.e. the history of colonialism. The answer to the first question, how did Braithwaite and others become British without being Briton, is colonialism. It was the enterprise of British colonialism that brought Africans into Caribbean islands and converted them into Europeans in taste, ideas, and morals. When these black-British crossed the Atlantic again to reach Britain, they were shunned as outsiders. Nobody could legally oust them from Britain, but neither could anybody be forced to welcome them. These non-white British found themselves in the state of intimate strangers, a paradox to the consistency of white British.

From the experience of Rick Braithwaite (and countless others like him) we can abstract the two figures of the colonial, the consistent and the paradox. The colonial-consistent is the member of the native colonial race who initiated colonialism and subjugated others. They are the British and Britons. The colonial-paradox is the member of the future generations of the subjugated people who either demand to be recognized/or are already recognized as the de jure members of the colonial-consistent race. For the colonial-consistent, the colonial-paradox is an unexpected byproduct of their actions, the result of accidents of the history that was beyond their control. The paradox raises unsettling questions to the consistent. While the colonial-consistent is eager to claim a part of the legacy of colonialism, they are apathetic, if not hostile, to the other part of it i.e. the colonial-paradox. To be a British without being a Briton means to be the colonial-paradox before the colonial-consistent. It's disorienting for both because the paradox demands equality based on identity.

How could a former slave-race claim identity with their former masters? The colonial-consistent invaded and subjugated them for exploitation but few generations later the subjugated races are at their doorsteps demanding equal rights and fair treatment. They claim identity with the former colonial masters. For the colonial-consistent (the Briton-British), the most disorienting claim is this.  Usually, such claims are based on humanity and equality but I think, the claim of Braithwaite-like people are even more thoroughgoing because they demand equality based on identity with the colonial-consistent. For most, this is an indigestible claim.

Is there a solution to the problem of the paradox, and the problem of the consistent? Although the colonial-consistent refuses to recognize the colonial-paradox, it's obvious that their histories were intertwined from the moment one colonized the other. The colonial-consistent isn't as consistent as they thought to be and the colonial-paradox isn't as paradoxical as they are made out to be. The challenge before both is to break the stereotypes of self-perception and mutual perception and build up a new foundation that could treat both as one, and identical. Love and empathy are the foundations of mutual recognition, and they begin, as in Braithwaite, with a change of heart.

On Shaw's Saint Joan

O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to receive Thy saints? How long, O Lord, how long?' Thus ends Saint Joan, Bernard Shaw's play on the life of Joan of Arc, the female warrior saint of France who led the French forces to a string of victories against the English in the critical moment of the Hundred Years War. The final lines are Joan's soliloquy, who was burnt at the stake by the English who had her excommunicated by the Church on the charge of crossdressing.

Saint Joan is a fictionalized account of the life of Joan of Arc, an eighteen-year-old French girl who claims to have received divine revelations from God through Saint Catherine, Saint Margaret, Archangel Michael, etc. The revelations commanded her to fight against the English who occupied France and instructed her to crown the Dauphin (later, Charles VII) as the king of France in the Reims Cathedral. Initially, she is dismissed as insane by everybody but her spirited defense of the visions start to win converts until she convinces Robert de Baudricourt, the captain of the royal garrison at Vaucouleurs. He recommends her to the Dauphin of France, who is in exile with the royal court at Chinon in Touraine. The Dauphin is a dispirited man who is bullied by his courtiers including the Chamberlain, to whom he owes a large sum. Joan's arrival is welcomed with a prank, one in which she had to identify the real prince from the royal entourage assembled at the court. Joan correctly identifies the prince and he is impressed with her since she recognizes the 'royal blood'. In a private session with the Dauphin Joan realizes that Charles is a coward who wouldn't dare lift a finger against the English if he could help it. He is even upfront about his lack of talent on the battlefield. In a telling exchange, when Joan offers to pray for Charles, he tries to dissuade her because if her prayers are answered he may become courageous like the rest of his military commanders and plunge headlong into battle and lose his life. He doesn't want any of it. Joan tries to convince him that the issue at stake is God's Will and Plan for France and not the lives of individuals, however royal and noble they maybe. Joan is determined to obey the commands of the voices and fight to the end the English and chase them away from France to England. Joan brings miracles in her wake and at Orleans, she helps Dunois (the French commander known as the 'Bastard') and his army defeat the English. Her arrival instantly changes the course of the wind and Dunois and his army sail upstream and attack the English fortress. From Orleans onwards, Joan is known as The Maid or The Maid of Orleans. She inspires the French army towards successive victories against the English and she crowns the Dauphin the King of France, Charles VII, at the cathedral at Reims. Her predictions come true and she is widely lauded as a divinely inspired Maid. Soon after the coronation, The Maid is given leave to return to her village because the King and the court are in no mood to prosecute the war against the English and recapture Paris. The King is glad about the miraculous turn of events but he is keen to secure a treaty with the English and put an end to the war. He is afraid that if he goes ahead with Joan's plan for Paris they might lose everything they had won back in the last one year. Joan is dismissed from the court and is later captured by the Burgundians who hands her over to the English. The English are incensed with Joan's successes against them and the Earl of Warwick arranges the Inquisition to try Joan on the charges of heresy. Although the Inquisition doesn't find any evidence of heresy against Joan (in fact, they found plenty of evidence in support of her piety) Joan's pert answers provoke the members of Inquisition against her. Unlike others who portray the Inquisition as the bloodthirsty arm of the Catholic Church, Shaw has tried to be fair towards them. Time and again the French bishop Cauchon reminds the Earl of Warwick that the primary purpose of the Inquisition is to save the soul of the girl and not burn her. He reminds the Earl that the Church can only excommunicate but it's the 'secular' authorities that execute the death sentence. Bishop Cauchon is appalled by the overtly political agenda behind Earl's enthusiasm for the case but he is equally troubled by Joan's impertinence. Although Joan doesn't denounce the Church or refuses to recognize its authority she sets up her opinions above it because her visions are God-sent. This is enough to be charged with heresy but in a last-ditch attempt to save Joan they reveal to her that the stake is prepared and once the order of excommunication is passed she would be taken to it and burned immediately. For the first time in the story, Joan wavers. Her confidence in the recent visions is shaken and she signs the document of confession, seeking pardon from the Church. The Inquisition is elated and the English and French chaplains present are outraged. But to their luck, Joan relapses to heresy. In exchange for her life, she is ordered to be imprisoned for life. Joan tears up her confession and proclaims her belief in the truth of her visions again. She declares that she would trade her life for freedom, i.e the freedom to enjoy the beautiful world God has created and the freedom to sing praises for Him. She is led to the stake and burnt. Only her 'frantic howling and sobbing' are recorded by the playwright. Twenty-five years later, Joan's excommunication is nullified by the Church and her Inquisitor, Bishop Cauchon is excommunicated by the Church posthumously for burning an innocent girl on trumped-up charges that served political interests. Soon after the posthumous rehabilitation of Joan, King Charles has a dream in which the dramatis personae apologizes to Joan, for either wronging her or slighting her. In a comic turn of events, a Vatican priest from 1920 appears in the dream and informs them of the news about Joan's canonization. Joan, now Saint Joan, is shocked and the apologies turn into praises and oaths of loyalty but when Joan inquires if she may come back alive since she is a saint now who can work miracles, mouths that uttered the oaths of loyalty become silent and quietly withdraw. The implication is that saints serve the world best dead. Thus, Joan's final soliloquy.

Bernard Shaw's Joan is a pious and strong-willed woman who solemnly believed in the truth of her visions. For Shaw, the social and political meaning of her visions is more important than the veracity of it. Joan represents the insurrectionary moment in the history of European politics and religion. The fourth scene where the Earl of Warwick has an audience with Bishop Cauchon is important because their exchange reveals the real danger both the church and the aristocracy believed Joan represented. A simple-minded peasant girl who believes that she is touched by the saints and the angels is a non-entity for the Church and the state. However, Joan's visions have political and religious ramifications. The aristocracy fears that Joan's mobilization of the French in the name of sacred France leads to the development of nationalism that would strengthen the hands of the kings against the nobility. As far as the nobles of both France and England are concerned the war is a tussle for power between two royal houses. It has nothing to do with the nations. The people should simply obey the commands of their masters, be they French or English. For the Church, the problem is that of Protestantism. The Church fears that people's interpretation of the scripture, without the moderating influence of the Church, will lead to heresies like Islam that would destroy the Christendom. Shaw isn't blindly critical of the Church. He gives the Church its due where he thinks it has one. The Church's Inquisition-like institutions moderate the fanaticism of the people. The Catholic Church fears that if the interpretation of the scriptures is left to the people, the fanatics among them would wreck the society through their violent bigotry. To a certain extent, the history of the rise of Protestantism bears witness to the truth of the Church's misgivings.

Who's the real villain of the story? After all, Saint Joan is a tragedy in which the guileless protagonist is killed by the unscrupulous nobles and priests. Although Shaw implicates everyone his denunciation of the aristocracy is particularly severe. The Church redeems itself (at least tries to) by nullifying Joan's excommunication and three centuries later canonizes her. The aristocracy has no excuses to offer apart from that of 'political necessities'. In the King's dream, the Earl of Warwick apologizes to Joan, saying that her burning was a purely political act with no personal malice behind it. The implication of the statement is obvious. The politicians and statesmen wouldn't hesitate to murder even saints if it fulfils their political necessities. Shaw doesn't let the Church off the hook completely. The clergy and the nobility were in a nexus in their determinate persecution of Joan. No act of posthumous canonization can repair the injustice done to the person of Joan of Arc. It wouldn't bring her back to life. As a saint, even if she wishes to resurrect herself the society wouldn't want it. They are afraid of the chaos she brings in her wake. They would burn her at the stake again. Saints, like geniuses, are recognized belatedly. Once the world starts walking the path they laid down, it understands the meaning of their actions. Until then, they would be chased away and persecuted because their genius threatens the social order and the interests of those in power. In a sense, the social and political climate of fourteenth-century Europe was such that it demanded the destruction of persons such as Joan. Maybe, the Earl was right. There was nothing personal against Joan. We might as well declare History as the villain, and wait for the 'end of times' when it would simply cease to be. Only the Time prosecutes the times.

On Rick Braithwaite's To Sir With Love

Last time I visited Connaught Place I dropped in at Oxford Bookstore. As my wont, I loitered around, browsing their collection. I picked up a couple of books from Oxford's Very Short Introduction series. I paid for them at the counter and was about to leave when I noticed it. It was E.R Braithwaite's To Sir With Love. I hadn't heard about the author of the book or about the book before. It was a slim volume, cheaply priced but neatly bound. I bought it along with the rest, simply out of curiosity. In the past, I have had good luck with books that I bought out of the blue. I hoped for the same with Braithwaite and he didn't disappoint me.

To Sir With Love is an autobiographical novel written by E.R Braithwaite (Rick), a Guyanese-born British writer. Braithwaite has written a story that is at once personal and social. At the level of the personal, it's the story of his experience as a teacher in one of London's East End schools. At the social level, it's a scathing critique of a racist society and the racial discrimination meted out to the author, a black man, by an ungrateful post-war British society.

Rick is a demobilized airman who finds it impossible to find a job of his choice in post-war Britain. A qualified engineer with a master’s degree, he is rejected by the companies because of his colour. Even when he is the most suitable candidate, companies reject him because the whites wouldn't brook a black man for a superior. Rick lives out the racial implications of 'being a British but not a Briton'. He is disgusted by the overt racism of the Whiteman. Disillusioned, he loses hope, and even contemplates suicide when a chance encounter sends him to a school in London's East End. Greenslade is situated in the East End of London, home to the working-classes of the city. Unlike other schools, Greenslade practices 'free discipline'. To the horror of Rick, who was brought up on the upper-class British manners and mores, the children of Greenslade are a rowdy crowd with no sense of decorum or protocol. They smoke, swear and freely flout the commands of their teachers. Rick wants to leave at first but he is a black man out of job for nearly eighteen months. It's his last chance at making a living and is determined to hold on. Rick is a highly educated black man who can't stand the mannerless lower-classes and their lack of culture. He is judgemental and impatient with his students initially. But as he comes to know about each of them personally he understands their daily struggles. For them the protocols of the upper-class and the lessons of school are a mere formality because ultimately they will end up in the same streets as their parents, they know it. The free discipline of Greenslade, championed by Principal Florian, is a silent recognition of this fact. Rick empathises with them but unlike his colleagues who have given up on these students, Rick believes that they can be changed. The rest of the story is about how Rick transforms the students into responsible adults with a sense of self-respect and duty, towards their families and themselves. In the process, Rick also changes. He becomes an empathetic man, who is accommodative and forgiving of differences.

The central message of the novel, written against the backdrop of racial discrimination and class-exploitation, is empathy. Here, empathy is a two-way street. Rick transformed his students to become the model class for the rest of the school by trying to understand them. The students reciprocate by empathising with his sufferings and his belief in them. They try to understand each other despite themselves and each other’s flaws.

The novel is a commentary on the state of post-war British society. Although Britain won the war, they lost the Empire. They are a nation reduced to their borders which is being overrun by their former colonial subjects who see themselves British, as British as the Britons. It's a nation being rebuilt from the foundations. It includes former moral and cultural convictions. In this state of anxious confusion, it’s easy to lose sight of the basic humanity that unites this medley of races, and their aspirations. We must show the courage to understand each other as we understand ourselves. Empathy is the solution to the problem of cultural mistrust. It’s through empathy that we find ourselves in these changing times and, it’s only when we find ourselves can we write to others, like Rick's students who wrote him, ‘With Love’. 

On Arms and the Man

A few weeks back I read Bernard Shaw's Arms and the Man. I bought the book earlier this year. I didn't have the time to read it then, and whenever I had time on my hand I wasn't ready to devote it to a play. I thought it would be too sentimental. I was wrong. Bernard Shaw's Arms and the Man is one of the best pieces of literature I have read in recent times. I haven't read many but I recognize a gem when I come across one. After finishing it in a day I searched about it. Arms and the Man is one of Shaw's first commercially successful plays. It's hilarious and thought-provoking.

I had read Shaw only once before, it was Pygmalion. It's one of his later plays that brought him the Nobel Prize for Literature. The play, Arms and the Man, was first performed in 1894. It's a story about war and romance written against the backdrop of the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885-'86. The story's female protagonist is a young woman named Raina who is the daughter of a Bulgarian Colonel named Paul Petkoff. Colonel Petkoff is fighting the Serbs at the war front. Raina is betrothed to Major Sergius, a dashing young Major in the Bulgarian Army and is fighting alongside his future father-in-law at the Serbo-Bulgarian border. Raina and her mother, Catherine Petkoff (the Colonel's wife), adores their men for their martial spirit and courage. They are as taken by the ballads of manly heroism in the battlefield like everybody else. They hate the Serbs as if they were the devils. On the night of Battle of Slivnitsa, word arrives that the Bulgarian Army has vanquished the Serbs and the enemy is on the run. Raina's fiance, Major Sergius, is the hero of the cavalry charge that routed the enemy. Raina and Catherine Petkoff are elated about this news and are waiting for the return of their heroes. Raina is warned that the enemy is being pursued through the city, thus she should close her blinds and windows and doors before she gets to bed. Raina does as she is asked but an hour or so later she has an uninvited guest standing inside her boudoir. She is afraid and her fears come true. The man in the ragged clothing is an enemy soldier who just escaped the Bulgarians from Slivnitsa. Although she is scared, Raina holds her wits as the soldier starts explaining himself. He tells Raina that he isn't a Serb but a Swiss mercenary (later, he reveals himself as Captain Bluntschli) fighting for the Serbs in the war. Contrary to her expectations of a gentlemanly soldier, Bluntschli is a man who is on the run for his life and doesn't feel any shame in inconveniencing a young woman to save his life. He doesn't risk capture because capture means death and there isn't any glory in it for him. Instead of arms, he keeps chocolate in his holster. Although she disliked him at the start, Raina gradually gets infatuated with him. When a Bulgarian soldier comes to check her boudoir for an escaped enemy Raina protects the captain. Later, she reveals to her mother about the soldier and they send him off to his destination discreetly in the morning but not before Raina slips in her photograph in her father's coat that they lend the Swiss. On the back of the photograph, Raina wrote, 'Raina, to her Chocolate Cream Soldier: a souvenir'. This is the end of the first Act. In the second Act, the Colonel and the Major return on the same day, and so does Captain Bluntschli, to return the coat. The whole comedy begins from there onwards.

The characters of Louka, the servant girl of Petkoff household, and Bluntschli are the only ones who see the injustice and the meaninglessness of a worldview that sends young men willingly to their death and young women to idly waste away their lives in adoration of heroes and blind submission to authority. Louka and Bluntschli are realistic yet characters of conviction. The character of Major Sergius is a pleasant surprise because he turns out to be someone whose mind is open to reason and love. Raina and Catherine hold him up as the epitome of manliness and courage but when Major Sergius speaks up he is honest about the fear he felt and disillusioned with an Army who wouldn't promote him. A man of such dashing and courage, he finds his equal in the servant girl Louka, who is as strong and stubborn as any soldier. She is willing to lead Major Sergius' advances only because she loves him and unlike Raina, Sergius is passionate about her. In the end, Major Sergius breaks off his engagement with Raina and proposes to Louka, to which she agrees. Captain Bluntschli proposes Raina and she agrees because finally, she finds the man who treats her as a woman, and not a figure of ideal love. Petkoffs are shocked but eventually give in before the determined young couples. The fact that Captain Bluntschli is the heir to a millionaire Swiss hotelier does its bit in convincing the Petkoffs that this may be for the better.

The play is a satirical take on the norms of a society that glorifies war and violence in the name of the nation and chivalry. These people mistake servitude for order and hero-worship for love. But the reality of the war, its cruelty and blood lust, tears down the pretentiousness of a civilization that's squeamish about customs, mores and protocol. Behind the veil of civilization is violence and war that knows no reason or love, it doesn't even have a sense of humanity. Shaw's characters, especially the young couples, break off from this suffocating moulds of social expectations and find in each other love and recognition. It's a simple and uplifting story about war and love and human lives caught in between the two.

Capitalism, Life and Human Destiny I

Is there anything outside Capital? 

Capital is one of the four factors of production along with land, labour and organization. Capital refers to the money invested to procure labour, land and organization. To ask oneself whether or not there is anything outside capital is to wonder whether there is anything outside the circle of production. Everything artificial around us was produced. Thus, everything man-made is included within the circle of production but my question, Is there anything outside Capital, refers to something else.

Unlike the guilds of medieval Europe and castes of India, trade from sixteenth century onwards is designed to create profit than provide livelihood for a group of people or to keep the division of labour intact in a society. From the 'age of discovery', capital is invested with an eye for profit. The rise of industrial capitalism has been superseded by contemporary capitalism that trades in all kinds of things. The main impulse of the capital, as a growing system, is to 'capitalize' everything i.e. it tries to turn everything around it to either a factor of production or a product. This means that capitalism reorganizes everything around it for profit, since it produces for profit. The purpose of existence for these products is to be profitable. But if capitalism capitalizes everything, the what about life itself, or, at least, what about human lives? Is it also capitalized?
The relation between capitalism and life has started to intrigue me. Capitalism, by capitalizing life, gives meaning and direction to it, doesn't it? Although our existence maybe without meaning, capitalism gives purpose to our lives. It has turned us into a part of production process. By consumption and demand we are pushing the circle of production forward. By working to the point of exhaustion we have become one of the factors of production itself, i.e. labour. Moreover, some of the heartfelt moments of our personal lives are facilitated through capitalist innovations in technology. Has human civilization got a future without capitalism? I don't know. It seems very unlikely.

The Complete Text of Rahul Gandhi's Resignation Letter

The news of Rahul Gandhi's resignation from the post of Congress President created quite a stir in the media. Some were skeptical about the genuineness of his intentions and others were glad. Inside the Congress party, however, people hoped he would remain. Even for a common Indian, it's almost incredible to imagine the Congress party without the leadership of Gandhi-Nehru family. Rahul Gandhi has put a stop to speculations by making public the resignation letter he submitted to the Congress Working Committee. It's official and public now. Rahul Gandhi has resigned and he is no longer the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha. He has resigned only from the presidentship. He has promised to remain a 'soldier' of the party and selflessly work for the cause of Congress' vision of an inclusive India. I'm glad that he showed the courage to hold himself accountable. He did what was necessary. 

I have posted the complete text of his resignation letter below. I think it should be read by all Indians, even by his political adversaries. It's genuine and heartfelt, qualities that are sorely missed in the current political discourse.

'It is an honour for me to serve the Congress Party, whose values and ideals have served as the lifeblood of our beautiful nation. I owe the country and my organisation a debt of tremendous gratitude and love. As President of the Congress Party, I am responsible for the loss of the 2019 election. Accountability is critical for the future growth of our party. It is for this reason that I have resigned as Congress President. Rebuilding the party requires hard decisions and numerous people will have to be made accountable for the failure of 2019. It would be unjust to hold others accountable but ignore my own responsibility as President of the party.

Many of my colleagues suggested that I nominate the next Congress President. While it is important for someone new to lead our party, it would not be correct for me to select that person. Ours is a party with a profound history and heritage, one of struggle and dignity that I deeply respect. It is woven into the fabric of India and I trust the party will make the best decision regarding who can lead us with courage, love and fidelity. Immediately after resigning, I suggested to my colleagues in the Congress Working Committee that the way forward would be to entrust a group of people with the task of beginning the search for a new President. I have empowered them to do so and committed my full support to this process and a smooth transition.

My fight has never been a simple battle for political power. I have no hatred or anger towards the BJP but every living cell in my body instinctively resists their idea of India. This resistance arises because my being is permeated with an Indian idea that is and has always been in direct conflict with theirs. This is not a new battle; it has been waged on our soil for thousands of years. Where they see differences, I see similarity. Where they see hatred, I see love. What they fear, I embrace. This compassionate idea permeates the hearts of millions and millions of my beloved fellow citizens. It is this idea of India that we will now vehemently defend.

The attack on our country and our cherished Constitution that is taking place is designed to destroy the fabric of our nation. In no way, shape or form am I stepping back from this fight. I am a loyal soldier of the Congress party and a devoted son of India and will continue to serve and protect her till my last breath.

We fought a strong and dignified election. Our campaign was one of brotherhood, tolerance and respect for all of India’s people, religions and communities. I personally fought the Prime Minister, the RSS and the institutions they have captured with all my being. I fought because I love India. And I fought to defend the ideals India was built upon. At times, I stood completely alone and am extremely proud of it. I have learned so much from the spirit and dedication of our workers and party members, men and women who have taught me about love and decency.

A free and fair election requires the neutrality of a country’s institutions; an election cannot be fair without arbiters – a free press, an independent judiciary, and a transparent election commission that is objective and neutral. Nor can an election be free if one party has a complete monopoly on financial resources.

We didn’t fight a political party in the 2019 election. Rather, we fought the entire machinery of the Indian state, every institution of which was marshalled against the opposition. It is now crystal clear that our once cherished institutional neutrality no longer exists in India.

The stated objectives of the RSS, the capture of our country’s institutional structure, is now complete. Our democracy has been fundamentally weakened. There is a real danger that from now on, elections will go from being a determinant of India’s future to a mere ritual.

This capture of power will result in unimaginable levels of violence and pain for India. Farmers, unemployed youngsters, women, tribals, Dalits and minorities are going to suffer the most. The impact on our economy and nation's reputation will be devastating. The Prime Minister's win does not negate the breadth of corruption allegations against him; no amount of money and propaganda can ever hide the light of the truth.

The Indian nation must unite to reclaim and resuscitate our institutions. The instrument of this resuscitation will be the Congress party.

To achieve this important task, the Congress Party must radically transform itself. Today the BJP is systematically crushing the voice of the Indian people. It is the duty of the Congress Party to defend these voices. India has never and will never be one voice. It is and always will be a symphony of voices. That is the true essence of Bharat Mata.

Thank you to the thousands of Indians, both at home and abroad, who have sent me letters and messages of support. I will, of course, continue to fight for the ideals of the Congress Party with all my strength. I am available to the party whenever they require my services, input or advice. To those who support the Congress ideology, especially our dedicated and beloved karyakarta, I have absolute faith in our future and the utmost love for you. It is a habit in India that the powerful cling to power, no one sacrifices power. But we will not defeat our opponents without sacrificing the desire for power and fighting a deeper ideological battle. I was born a Congressman, this party has always been with me and is my life’s blood and forever that way it shall remain'.

Jai Hind.

Rahul Gandhi

Courtesy: The Hindu

Einstein on Prejudice

In a letter to his friend Albert Einstein once wrote: 'I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today – and even professional scientists – seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is – in my opinion – the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth'.

Einstein believed that scientists should be educated in the history, philosophy, and methodology of their disciplines so that they may escape the prejudices of their present. A critical awareness of the history and philosophy of scientific disciplines will help scientists escape the prejudices of their generation. Prejudices are preconceptions held without reason or evidence. It's almost incredible to think that scientists, some of the finest minds of a society, will be influenced by prejudices despite working in a field that's known for intelligent and creative thinking i.e science. Einstein knows that even without a background in the history and philosophy of science, intelligent and imaginative scientists produce groundbreaking results. Thus, he isn't talking about creating good scientists. Good science doesn't need a knowledge of history and philosophy, just like a good historian doesn't need to know about the theory of relativity in any detail. Scholars and scientists may practice their respective crafts without much mutual recognition. But, Einstein's concern isn't about scientists or scholars. It's about the seeker of the truth.

The phrase 'seeker of the truth' isn't heard anymore in the halls of academia. Einstein's Seeker isn't just an artisan or specialist. He may be an artisan or a specialist but he doesn't restrict his curiosity to his specialty alone. He tries to understand the philosophical implications of his work. He tries to understand the meaning of his work and connects it to the larger questions humans have always asked, such as the ultimate nature of reality, the place of humans and the purpose of existence. This is typical of Einstein. This is Einstein the thinker speaking. Unlike many of his contemporaries in science, Einstein was deeply concerned about the philosophical implications of his work. Since the fifties physicists have adopted the maxim 'Shut Up and Calculate'. The post-war generation of physicists wasn't interested in the kind of philosophical debates Einstein and Niels Bohr engaged each other about the ultimate nature of reality. Einstein defended a deterministic model of the universe where events were controlled by physical laws and thus could be predicted correctly. Bohr defended his Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics through which he argued that Universe, at its most fundamental level i.e. subatomic, was chaotic. The only way to observe and measure reality at the subatomic level was to interfere with it and thus deviate it from its natural course. The universe couldn't be studied without taking account of the observer. The biggest question these thinkers tried to tackle was whether or not we could make objective sense out of our Universe. Einstein believed that it could be and Bohr believed that knowledge of the Universe was objective only so far as we accounted for the observer. At the heart of their debate were two questions, the comprehensibility of the universe and the place of Man within it. They debated about the ontological, moral and human implications of their works. When Einstein wrote this letter, probably he had the image of Bohr and himself in his mind.

Einstein's letter is a reminder to young scientists, and young scholars in humanities, to think beyond their specialties and try to relate their work with the perennial questions of human existence. A counter-example to Einstein's attitude would be Stephen Hawking's pronouncement that philosophy is dead. Interestingly, Hawking's 'anti-philosophy' of science can be interpreted as a philosophical stand and addressed as such.

Before closing this post, I would like to add one more thing. It's a question, just out of my curiosity. History and Philosophy may help scientists escape the prejudices of the present but I wonder if they could escape the prejudices of the ancients. It's a question for another time.