I met "The One straw revolution"....

Sometimes, you read a book and feel that you have met in the author, a part of yourself. In my case, "the one straw revolution" by Masanobu Fukuoka is one such book. Some quotes:

==== page 74.

Modern research divides nature into tiny pieces and conducts research that conforms neither with natural law nor with practical experiments.
...
Even if you can explain how metabolism affects the productivity of the top leaf when the average temperature is eighty-four degrees (Fahrenheit), there are places where the temperature is not eighty-four degrees. Moreover, if the temperature is eighty-four degrees in Ehime this year, next year it may only be seventy-five degrees. To say that simply stepping up metabolism will increase starch formation and produce a large harvest is a mistake. The geography and topography of the land, the condition of the soil, its structure, texture, and drainage, exposure to sunlight, insect relationships, the variety of seed used, the method of cultivation-truly an infinite variety of factors-must all be considered. A scientific testing method that takes all relevant factors into account is an impossibility.
==== page 87.
If one farm household or one cooperative takes up a new process such as the waxing of Mandarin oranges, because of the extra care and attention the profit is higher. The other agricultural co-ops take notice and soon they, too, adopt the new process. Fruit which is not wax-treated no longer brings so high a price. In two or three years, waxing is taken up all over the country. The competition then brings the prices down and all that is left to the farmer is the burden of hard work and the added costs of supplies and equipment. Now he must apply the wax.
====

In this chapter, Fukuoka indicates how physical deformities are not indicative of the nutritional value, but are still preferred.

====
It is the same with fertilizer and chemicals. Instead of developing fertilizer with the farmer in mind, the emphasis is on developing something new, anything at all, in order to make money.
====
The fundamental question here is wheter or not it is necessary for human beings to eat eggplants and cucumber during the winter.
====
I do not particularly like the word "work." Human beings are the only animals who have to work, and I think this is the most ridiculous thing in the world. Other animals make their livings by living, but people work like crazy, thinking that they have to in order to stay alive.
====
Why do you have to develop? If economic growth raises from 5% to 10%, is happiness going to double? What's wrong with a growth rate og 0%? Isnt' this a rather stable kind of economics? Could there be anything better than living simply and taking it easy?
====

This book does not subscribe to escapism, or suggest that one should be lazy. Fukuoka makes it very clear that the life of natural farming is very difficult, that every plant has to be studied, and significant manual labor is involved.

As for me, the current definitions of development, and the behavior of science and business are quite irresponsible, and out of balance. The book says the same in the area of agriculture.

For example, the quote from page 87 (above) describes a "Waxing" phenomena that we can see happening at several other industries. The parallel is easier to understand in the IT business where margins have become razor thin as more companies outsourced and competition increased. IT companies routinely slave their workers. The loss of quality of life was not apparent initially, but is now being seen all around.

I do not think that one should stop scientific research; I believe however that large scale experiments with untested scientific research is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.

Market - and only market.

We had been to Satish's farm last Saturday. Their story is similar to that of Srikanth and Priti at vanashree: http://www.vanashree.in/Ourjourney.htm. I will not repeat the aspects of simple living and so on over here. It is better described at several other websites.

I wonder what would be the social implications if people take to such lifestyles on a large scale. Often, people say that such a simple life, or "the Gandhian way" is anti-development. I beg to differ. The way most "development" is designed right now, it is designed to only serve a "market". The larger the market, the better the development. This cannot be the best model that our economists, researchers, and industrialists can come up with.

There has to be a middle ground between crass commercialization, market economy principles, and the North-Korea/Cambodia style defeatist principles. As for a window into current "market development", it would help looking at a sample of the products that hit markets, I quote an article I saw on Onion:

== Begin quote ==
"Often, when we're assigned a new order for, say, 'salad shooters,' I will say to myself, 'There's no way that anyone will ever buy these,'" Chen said during his lunch break in an open-air courtyard. "One month later, we will receive an order for the same product, but three times the quantity. How can anyone have a need for such useless shit?"

"I hear that Americans can buy anything they want, and I believe it, judging from the things I've made for them," Chen said. "And I also hear that, when they no longer want an item, they simply throw it away. So wasteful and contemptible."
== End quote ==

Of course, not all products are this bad. Some innovations are really useful. But much of it is junk, or given the environmental hazards posed, worse than junk :). The effect of a purely market economy can go deeper than creating junk. It subtly alters people to think that they are happy while indulging in products, and satisfying such an indulgence is most important for "life". BBC had a series called "The Century of the Self". It is a documentary about the understanding of human behavior vis-a-vis market economy and large businesses (Available on google video). The works of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud make for very interesting reading here.

This is where Gandhian living kicks in. It focusses on people satisfying their basic needs through their own hard work, and looking for external resources only when absolutely needed. A typical argument against this lifestyle is that it stunts progress; Science is like evolution and needs to be done in baby steps (I agree with this). If one ventures to science only when absolutely needed, there will be disorganized, slow, or stunted development. For example, if vaccum cleaners were never invented, the "roomba", an automatic vaccum cleaner would never have been invented. This is a very subjective argument for which a short answer is not possible. However, in the current era, it is easy to see that most science has been overtaken by a market phenomena. Too frequently, the fundamental technology, and even a study of its effectiveness at solving the stated problem gets much less importance than the buzz factor generated. It gets even more dangerous when profit becomes the prime driving force behind industry. A lifestyle that is focussed on only solving the most important problems will not let go of scientific advances completely. It may be a model that can eliminate mass-producing the "junk" that gets generated by intermediate results.

Bangalore getting hotter.

The Hindu had a post about how Bangalore temperatures are soaring. It doesnt need a rocket scientist to say that temperatures will be higher if we cut down trees.

We will need scientists, or maybe magicians to figure out a solution after enuff of those trees are cut.

To GE or not GE…

Got into a discussion with members at AID about Genetic Engineering; it was about whether one should support it or not. There were several aspects that were discussed; the question according to me is not about GE but about issues that NGOs have to pick up in general.

I will re-state a few salient aspects as points:


1. Science is often mis-aligned for profit. Science needs to have experimental
rigor and business ethics should be sound.
2. Science should have solutions that are reversible. Think harmful
gas leaks without medication in neighboring hospitals (Dow/Bhopal, industrial
effluents, Agent Orange).
3. Historically, when technology or a line of thought removes choice,
it is harmful.
This is not just about science. Its effects are more easily
understood in social problems. Think Mangalore - removal of choices for women etc.
4. No amount of testing is sufficient testing. Errors happen, and that is
acceptable. Hence, technologies must balance 1, 2, and 3 so as to
allow correctable and gradual acceptance.

As users of advanced technology, and more because we are NOGs, we have to
be aware of these aspects, and be clear about why a certain technology should,
or should not be supported. We cannot have ad-hoc approaches to each problem.

Generally, I am not against a particular technology, and that includes GE. But I would be most comfortable with a technology that supports these tenets.

Long time no see.

It has been a long time since i have posted. Several things have happened. The baby is awesome. We had a naming ceremony in eary Jan. I bought a car. Tata Indigo Marina VS; white color. Very basic to look at, but very nice on the road. I like it that way.

I have had two tickets. :) Both times, it has been for a no-entry offence. The traffic police has a black berry on which he enters your licence plate number, and he immidiately gets all your history. Then you pay the fine and you get a receipt. I have seen traffic policemen stand around with cameras - No, they are not taking family pictures. They take photos of licence plates, and send you a fine by mail. The system could be misused, and I have had colleagues tell me that it is misused. I do not yet know the veracity and extent of misuse though.

The fine system has been made very functional, but the traffic signs and training is pretty bad. The no-entry sign has a Blue background, Black arrow, and Red color mark on the arrow. Blue-Black-Red... Great contrast I must say, especially on streets where hajaar other useless things mess with every half-useful sign.

Attended a talk at Navadarshanam. It was started by a group of IITans in the early 90s. To cite from the group's mission:

* people all over the world today are caught in the dangerous, swirling, currents of the materialistic, urban industrial way of life.
* alienation of the individual from self, nature, and the Creative Power is going hand in hand with societal disintegration and ecological destruction.

Question by the "COMMON MAN" : How weretched do I have to be?

This is in response to an article that was sent to me by a friend.

The article mentions the following:

===== Snippet Begins ====
"The hard reality of this country is that we are living in two Indias. One is for the rich, who matter, and one is for the poor, who are invisible," said Ashok Agarwal, a lawyer who runs Social Jurist, a group that litigates education cases on behalf of the marginalized sections of society. "In India, you can use the poor for your benefit. He should cook your meals, wash your utensils, scrub your clothes, but when it comes to doing justice for the victims of other bombings, there wasn't this level of outrage. When poor people were attacked, the country wasn't suddenly insecure. This is a fundamental injustice, and it has led to authorities ignoring attacks."

Mumbai, with more than 14 million people, is India's most populous city and has often suffered tragedy. In 2005, monsoon flooding killed more than 400 people in the city in one day, and the main victims were the poor. One Indian media study found that a fashion event got more local coverage than the flooding, which affected many slum dwellers. Mumbai is home to Asia's largest slums.

Although India's economy is booming, poverty runs deep. Nearly half of all Indian children are clinically malnourished or underweight, on par with the rate in Bangladesh and worse than in Ethiopia, according to UNICEF. Even as the economy has grown by up to 8 percent, child malnutrition has declined only one percentage point, to 46 percent, in seven years, according to a 2007 National Family Health Survey, part of a government report.
===== Snippet Ends ====

This article defines a common man with a bar that is too high. As per their definition of a common man, I would not be a common man. A majority of AIDers would also not be common men (or women).

The article says that train bombings only affected "really poor people", and in saying so, it completely ignores local realities. What, really does the article think a middle class individual is? I remember traveling to college everyday in a second class compartment in Mumbai with 10-15 of my friends. I too may have been dead if the attack were on my compartment. My mom missed the 1993 blasts by a hair's breadth. I was significantly pained by the developments of July 26th, when Mithi river combined with rains lashed the city. Several of my friends lost their apartments with everything in it. Some of my colleagues had friends who died saving lives. Articles such as these do not do justice to the individuals mentioned above. I agree that media attention for the Taj attack shows how high-society damages are being considered very important. But at the other end, it is also fashionable to highlight only the "completely helpless". There is someone in the middle who always loses out. :)

This someone in the middle is the householder who owns a scooter (If he has a car, he is in pretty bad shape, since he is too filthy rich), has a mortgage on a flat (If he owns one, hard luck - the Govt should be doing nothing for him), two kids who go to school, and a job (or two) that consistently lets the family meet ends. The family tries its best to save, it is conscious of society, but its consciousness is either directed towards religious charity, or it is very busy in maintaining a tight ship. In the worst case, the consciousness is overwhelmed by the feeling of "Every man to his own - no one is helping me, so why should I help others.". This someone in the middle is often ignored by the media and establishment.

But then, why am I writing this email to you, and not to someone else, maybe the editor of the Washington Post. This brings me to the real grudge. I have always been outraged that our establishment exhibits callous behavior when common people die. It's reaction to the parliament attacks has been significantly different from say, the July 26th rains in Mumbai, Bihar floods, 1993 bomb blasts, Bhopal tragedy, the train bombings, and for a host of other issues. However, I also have a grudge that this person in the middle is systematically ignored by NGOs as well.

It is neither right, nor necessary for most NGOs to stick to this definition. Of course, the poor appeal as poster ads, but in the long run it is very damaging if the NGOs seek holistic and sustainable development. The issues of a middle-class individual - "access to clean water, decent roads, honest establishment, honest livelihood, nice education" are very much in line with those of "the poor". One blame that can be placed on the middle-class individuals is that they are not (yet) 100% desperate for these resources, and have not (yet) extinguished the facilities at their disposal to guard families from a lack of resources.

I have held a household in India now only for about 3 months. In these short 3 months, I have begun to learn why it is very difficult for the so called middle-class to sustain themselves, and why they find it extremely un-realistic to help others. Few examples:

1. I have acquaintaces who hold top jobs, and would in no way fall under the category of "opressed". Their kids receive education in a decent school amongst several other "decent" ones. The student teacher ratio is 1-60. The education he gets is nowhere close to marginally good, let alone ideal. The civics and moral science class is a heap of rubbish. What, then is the position of NGOs here?

2. I had been to the police station recently. It was incredible to note the level of apathy meted out to the ordinary police by our establishment. For the kind of facilities provided to them by our Govt., the work they do is amazing. I can only imagine what they would be able to do if someone were to ensure them security of their families and decent living condition. This police, alas will also fall below the bar of "the common man" who should be helped.

3. Several flats in Bangalore have to purchase bottled water. It has come to be accepted as a norm. The ground water is horrible. The middle class has not been told that this is sub-standard living. They will continue buying water because they do not know any alternative. I do not know if there is any solution for this.

4. Teachers in private schools do not get paid the salary they have signed up for. Almost all work for peanuts, while parents dole out significant amounts by way of fees.

There are several instances where the "middle man" always loses out and no one even likes to comment about it. Presumably, he has the ability to help himself. The latter is alas, just a presumption and very far fromt he truth. I would go further to say that if we do not help these individuals, NGOs and politico-social organizations (like Governments) are losing out on a large support base. If we can provide them with some simple assistance, some semblance of social responsibility in their daily lives, they can potentially become a sustainable force that will ultimately assist social development. This "person in the middle" has incredible resilience, the ability to help himself, and the intent to help others. But he needs assistance. The person is regrettably always ignored in the cross-fire between "high-society" and "marginalized"...

I guess if I had to summarize this in one line, I would put it as follows:
"How wretched should I be to get help from your hands?"

BTW, for those who know me better, I am not going to stop the current activities I am involved in. This entry mentions what I think is in-appropriate ethics on behalf of various establishments. I will continue my current work, and strive to create gradual changes.

From the callous IT capital to the in-secure financial capital.

I happened to visit KR Market (Bangalore) yesterday. And was it a beautiful experience. A few images are attached for review.





Muck and dirt was about 1.5 to 2 inches thick on the ground and it was impossible to walk from one side of the bus-stop to the other. We saw a small family with a husband-wife, and a baby struggle to negotiate the dirt, and the oncoming buses to reach the footpath, and catch their bus.

My family often prefers to take public transport. It is not that we cannot afford an auto or a car. My whole family just feels that it is more prudent to take advantage of public transport when available. So, there we were - mother, father, and myself negotiating through what is a major metro transport hub of our "IT capital". Not once did we feel out-of-place in that location (Dirt, muck, heat, rain, and population is a part and parcel of our country), but all three of us agreed that it did not have to be so bad. This bus-stand has been by far the worst my family has seen; it is not so bad even in our village.


BTW, my post about muck in KR Market may seem to be quite disconnected with the goings-on in Bombay... Quite the contrary, I see that the same cause is responsible for something as simple as a "dirty bus station" and something as esoteric and complex as "national security". There is no dearth of blogs pointing out the reasons for various "ills". These observations [1, 2, 3] make for interesting reading regarding the latest security fallacies in our nation.

We have loosened our Govt. on several small issues, and now it is effecting more significant areas of public space. Callous attitiude by everyone has always killed people or at the very least, made an average Indian citizen lead a pathetic existence. This cancer has now become so significant that the threat to our living is very direct and obvious.