Begging is one of the issues that defines a difference between an old Indian world view and the "modern, Western" (Judeo Christian?) world view. Anyone who grows up in India and has a school education in English is likely to have a "split personality" view on begging because of influences from two completely different cultural takes on begging.

I believe it is possible to split these two views of begging by picking up a purely "Western" - say British, view and an Indian view of begging.

The Western view goes somewhat like this:
* begging is bad and undesirable
* nobody should have to beg
* begging indicates extreme poverty
* begging indicates a fault in society in which people are heartless and uncaring of unfortunate souls
* begging is a menace to society because beggars can be tempted to become criminals
* begging must be eliminated. Beggars must not exist (or not openly acknowledged to exist without feeling guilty)

The Indian view goes something like this:

* The state of being a beggar is an individual's karma
* because it might be a person's karma to beg, beggars must exist and they do exist.
* begging is not immoral or indicative of poverty. It may be an indicator of misfortune (karma)
* begging can be a matter of choice. It is mandatory for some people to beg as a route to their personal salvation. Brahmins and Jains under some conditions can only beg, It is legally possible to take "sanyasa" after which you cannot work for a living and must live on alms (beg?). It is necessary to live as a beggar for some period of time as an act of devotion in worshipping some deities (Sabarimalai)

For Hindus - begging is an act of ambiguous significance. It is never all bad but it is not pleasant. It could be fate. it could be choice. The choice of doing something unpleasant resonates well with the Hindu tendency to seek to remove all worldly desire and achieve a state of perfect equanimity, a blissful - desireless, not happy-not sad state of absolute neutrality. This is attitude is shared with Jains and Buddhists who also actually encourage begging under certain circumstances.

Hindu discourse never seeks to remove beggary in contrast to the laws and attitudes towards beggars that the British introduced into India.

Begging seeks to evoke guilt both in the West and in India, and the idea that beggars need help is common to the West and to India. But in a topsy-turvy reversal of Western "individualism" versus the Indian "group psyche", it seems that people in the West see begging as a problem with society and tend to introduce societal level measures to eliminate begging. The Westerner who helps a beggar can achieve only temporary assuaging of his guilt because begging is a blot on society that must be exterminated.

The Indian on the other hand sees begging as "natural", like trees, and feels no urgency to eliminate begging. Beggars, In the Indian mind, are part of society and not a blot on society or disease of society. The individual in India who helps a beggar believes that he will gain personally by his compassion. His karma is improved by doing that, There is long lasting benefit to him personally. This feeling is potentiated by Indian folklore which is replete with stories of gods who appear as beggars and bestow enormous boons on those who are kind to them. For these reasons, begging is open, blatant and vulgar in India, but hidden, surreptitious and acknowledged with guilt in the West.

The Westerner sees begging in India and reacts with horror. He believes that poverty and societal apathy exist in India.

The Indian educated in an English school in India picks up a confused mixture of the Western and the Indian attitudes to begging. He discovers that begging has been virtually eliminated in the West and believes that "begging=poverty" and "West=wealth". He then develops a loathing towards Indian society which is seen as being doubly incompetent in its inability to provide wealth or remove begging. He develops an admiration of Western society sometimes tinged with hidden jealousy. That is why he reacts with triumph and joy when he discovers that begging exists in the West. Somehow that makes him feel better because it indicates that his own cultural background is not as pathetic as he has been saying all these years.

With these complex emotions guiding attitudes, one could throw the cat among the pigeons and ask "Which is better?"

My personal feeling is that begging cannot be eliminated, despite Western good intentions, so blaming society for begging is a bogey. There will always be social misfits, psychotics and other people who will find a niche for themselves by begging. It might not always be right to incarcerate these people in institutions paid for by society. That apart, there is the question of free choice and freedom of religious belief that create a role for begging in society. On the other hand, when begging is accepted as normal in society, it establishes an industry out of begging that creates millionaires and failures, and as in any unregulated industry, some of the worst practices will become rampant so long as there is profit.

If "the West" is wrong in seeking to artificially eliminate begging, it is equally wrong to accept begging as inevitable and yet not ensure that begging's worst excesses go unchecked because the situation and "institution" of begging is classified under "karma".

The Hindu liberal is a cowardly species who misuses existing Hindu liberalism to malign Hindus and avoids taking a stand on murder when it's done in the name of Islam.

An English education in India teaches on the word "liberalism" but does not teach the liberalism that was represented by the word "Hindu" when it was coined by people who saw the peculiar life and practices of the populations living in the lands east of the Indus river.

Liberalism today can only exist in the space provided for it by conservatives. Liberals who push the envelope too far are rapidly taught how far they can go in every society except in Hindu society. I believe Hinduism originally expanded into a mass of liberal practices until faced with religions that restricted the space that Hindu liberalism could act in. This gave birth to Hindu conservatism that is offended by the space taken up by liberals. But Hindu conservatism has still not learned the top most trick in the book - the Brahma-astra of all conservatism - the death sentence. The death sentence is used well in Islam and serves as a beautiful barrier to prevent liberals from stepping on conservative space. Maybe Hindu society too will evolve the robust conservatism of the death sentence - difficult to tell. But the reason why Hindu liberals are so lopsided in their views is because their Hinduness allows them to be critical of Hinduism without the conservative backlash that organized religions have developed from the start to keep people within the boundaries of a flock.

I have a theory to explain how the Hindu liberal manages to be so scathing of Hinduism while being completely silent on issues like murder committed in the name of Islam.

I have coined the term "Dhimmi liberal" for this group - but will explain some of the jargon in a later post.

Picture 1 is the behavior of a true liberal. When faced with Hinduism he may have something to criticise and something to praise. Similarly, when faced with Islam, he may have something to criticise and something to praise.

Picture 1
True Liberal:


Picture 2 shows the behavior of a dhimmi liberal. Fear of Islam (Fatwas, riots, a history of making and carrying out death sentences) makes him afraid of being critical of Islam

Picture 2
Dhimmi Liberal (Indian Secular) behavior


Finally Picture 3, is a composite of picture 2 and shows up the behavior of the "Hindu Indian Secular Intellectual" who is actually a liberal, but also a dhimmi, and faces both Islam and Hinduism together in a mixed society.

Now islam and Hinduism have many many "opposites" Islam opposes Hinduism's liberalism, many Gods, idols, compassion for life etc. Islam also opposes any opposition. The dhimmi liberal faces a dilemma when confronted with a mix of Hindus and Islam. Criticizing Islam is a strict no-no. But even praising anything about Hinduism constitutes opposing Islam. So when the Dhimmi Liberal faces a mixed Hindu and Islamic society his easiest path is to invariably criticize Hindus or invariably praise Islam.


Picture 3
Dhimmi Liberal faced with mixed Hindu Muslim society

My mother died on the 8th of May 2008. She had had a reasonably good innings - she was 82 and had been wheelchair bound for a decade. She was a tremendously bold lady who was scared of nothing, and remained physically non-dependent on anyone despite being in a wheelchair. But after completing certain duties in the last couple of years, she felt that her life's work had been done - and was somewhat resentful of her own continued existence. She had already outlived my father by 14 years.

When the end came, it was quick and peaceful. I anticipated the end several hours in advance and sounded everyone off. I was by her bedside as the end came in the early hours of the 8th of May, her 66th wedding anniversary. A few hours earlier, I tried to give her some milk to drink. She had one sip and refused. I told her that I thought it likely that her next drink would be morning coffee made by my dead father. She briefly opened her eyes and smiled to acknowledge my comment. Later that night - as I nodded off, her intermittently loud stertorous breathing was disturbing - and I gently chided her when I realized what was happening. "Amma, you are Cheyne-Stoking" I complained to her. Not that she heard or understood. Her pulse, that had been bounding all her life, lost volume and became irregular and I waited for the end to come, and when it did, I kissed her one last time.

My mother had always wanted to donate her body for dissection in a medical college. Luckily for me - that was not in her will because I really have no clue about the legal implications of that, and what sort of certificate I could have got from the anatomy or other department of a medical college, and how the registrar of births and deaths would have viewed that certificate as a valid document for issuing a legally valid death certificate.

I am not a sentimental fellow. I believe I did my duty in being physically present for the last few years of both my parents lives. I knew when to expect the end and what to do at the end. Over the years I have found that it is easy to distinguish certain definite patterns that seem to set apart the life of an Indian getting old in India versus one who gets old abroad - like many of my own relatives and friends.

Deaths - and unending stream of deaths becomes a defining feature of living in India. Over that past 16 years my life has meant that I have been medical adviser, relative and pall bearer for a string of people and it is easier to write a short dispassionate list than to pen down the little details of the last days of every one of these people. My list goes Aunt 1992, Uncle 1992, Uncle1993, Father1994, Great Uncle 1998, Aunt 1999, Aunt 2001, Cousin 2003, Uncle 2004, Cousin 2005, Mother in law 2005, Father in law 2006, Cousin's wife 2006, Mother 2008. The one last memory I have of all of them is carrying one slippery handle of a bamboo bier up the steps of a crematorium to place on the steel rails that slide the bier into the furnace. The crematorium technician asks you to step back and pulls a lever that opens the electric furnace door. The bier with the body slides in and the clothes on the body burst into flame with a dull thud just before the furnace door is shut. Goodbye.

Hindu society is extremely superstitious and exists in a state of collective consciousness. It is difficult to understand this "collective consciousness" business unless you learn to look at Indian society as a tree. Every one of your relatives - first, second or third degree merely represent names, or labels on branches of that tree. When a person dies, the label merely changes to ""late father/mother/uncle/aunt". The branch remains and so do all the connections. That is why Indians are required to do so much for the sake of what others may think or say. The failure to perform certain duties after a death not only adds to the sorrow of people who remain as branches of the tree, but reduces their own stature and self image and makes them worry that unless a dead person's karma is completed - their own lives cannot be complete and that their own death will lead to further rebirth. This feeling exists to a greatly magnified degree among my Brahmin relatives. To them it makes no difference that it is my mother who is dead - leaving only my brother and me as first degree relatives.

And so I get pulled reluctantly into a series of rituals that I see as pointless in a situation where I am unable to understand them and the ritual performers are unable to say why the hell the rituals should per performed at all. Of course, I am told that this is all for the good of the departed soul.

Fine, I say. It is all for the good of the departed soul. But what if I and my entire family had died in an earthquake and had nobody to perform these rites? Would that mean that our souls would keep floating about forever? That sounds like complete rubbish to me - and as expected - there is no answer to this question. Digging as I am doing into the origins and evolution of such customs, it becomes clear to me that most of these rituals are designed for a grieving relative to come to terms with loss. But this fact has been lost to the mumbo jumbo of time and tradition.

There is a story of the tradition of a cat being tied to a pillar in weddings. The tradition was followed mindlessly and unquestioningly in a particular family. It turned out that at some time in the past a cat had been wandering about disturbing the proceedings at a wedding and an elder had ordered that the cat be tied up to stop its disturbing the ceremony. Onlookers then believed that it was necessary to tie a cat to a pillar after that. Hindu funeral rituals almost certainly follow this paradigm when they are overdone. I owe it to my mother that I inherited a degree of strength of mind that makes me say "Hey - it's my mommy that's dead - so stop messing with me and asking me to do some crap. Mom will be where she needs to be anyway - with or without all this"

The full blown rituals are pathetic in the way they are conducted and I pity the people who have to go through needless discomfort at a time of loss. I believe that one of the signs of "development" in India would be to rationalize and explain the rituals and perform them in a hygienic manner, in a clean environment. Even a brief study of the rituals indicate that they are related to both hygiene in handling dead bodies and philosophical underpinnings to help cope with loss. Both these are perfectly valid and laudable aims, but they are performed by ignorants on other ignorants in the filthiest of conditions. "Purifying" oneself before a ritual involves a bath, or at the very least washing one's feet - but this comes undone when one walks barefoot through an abominably filthy area to sit by a disinterested priest who chants stuff between cell-phone calls while he further wets and dirties the area. After being involved "hands on" for so many deaths - I really would like to see changes here.

And then there's the feeding. Part of the rituals involve the feeding of strangers. When you do a "turnkey" funeral contact - these to-be-fed people are produced by the contractors. Some of these guys came home and did what I think is completely inexcusable - the went for a piss and pissed on the floor of the bathroom shower area instead of into the commode. Yuck. Is this what i need to put up with for my mother to get peace and release from the cycle of life? Who's fooling whom?

And finally - a word about costs. if you live in India, and someone dies, the first thing you should do us withdraw about 10,000 Rupees and carry it on your person for all the immediate expenses. Over the next 14 days you will be spending a total of Rs 30,000 or more to complete all the rituals and feed everyone. Hearse to carry the dead body to the freezer while relatives fly in from abroad: Rs 1000. Advance for freezer for 3 days Rs 1000. If it's going to take longer - the body will need embalming. Cost of photo/obituary announcement in newspaper - Rs 5000 per newspaper. Immediate funeral expenses including tips for crematorium hangers on and bribe to crematorium clerk Rs 2000 to 3000. Turnkey contract for rituals - Rs 8000-12,000. Journey to immerse ashes somewhere - variable - may be anything from Rs 1000 to 10,000. Cost of feeding people - variable but may be Rs 5000 to Rs 25,000.

I don't need to say "Rest in peace mummy." My mother is at peace and would have been at peace whether I did anything or not. It is only to make the living RIP that one has to make a song and dance about it.

Organized religion is the original form of fascism.

Religion is the ganging up of a group of people under an imaginary leader who is purported to get angry if you don't agree with him and follow his dictates. Goons of this group will punish you or even kill you in the name of their god. Members of this fascist group will claim discrimination if you disagree with them and reserve the right to kill for this reason.

If you look back at World War 2 and the Nuremberg trials, only Nazi leaders were tried and punished. The average foot soldier was let off using the rationalization that he was merely following the orders of his superiors and was therefore not responsible.

This is the exact rationalization used by the goons of organized religion. They merely follow the orders of their god, and complain that they are totally innocent of murder. Unfortunately "god" is a cooked up entity and unlike Nazi leaders he cannot be brought to justice as he should. Predictably, goons who follow religion will claim that their cooked up god cannot be brought to justice because he is so great. That god needs to be shown his place (by critiques and ridicule) and the clergy - the people who serve as intermediaries between god and humans need to be checked and monitored for spreading lies and deceit. In EVERY religion. Not just one or two.

Religions have wiped out unknown numbers of cultures all over the world and they are still busy trying to spread their poison of false promises made by non existent entities. And we all sit back and watch - imagining that we are rational beings.

The interesting part of "culture replacement" is that if you are efficient enough at murdering, you only need to murder one generation of men of reproductive age. The women can be taken and used for baby-production. The next generation that is born is free to be indoctrinated into the "new and better 'culture' (or religion)" that is triumphalist in its contempt for the "bad old culture" it replaced.

After Rome converted to Christianity, the Roman empire used the exact coercive methods that it was accustomed to spread Christianity all over Europe. The Catholic Church itself took on the coercive powers of the Roman empire to ruthlessly eliminate all other cultures to the extent that "alien" cultures that opposed the spread of Christianity are all now remembered only as undesirables, while their pagan gods, their music and their literature have all been destroyed.

The word "barbarian" is pejorative. It pre-dated Christianity - but it was re-applied with new meaning to indicate bearded opponents of Christians in Europe. The word "vandal" again is a derogatory term. The "vandals" were a group that opposed the Church but were eliminated. What history records is the violence of the vandals and not their culture or art or music. What history does not record is the violence and the means used to reduce them to a memory, with the name of their tribe being converted to a word that symbolizes destruction.

Zoroastrianism is all but dead. Pre-islamic cultures and faiths in North Africa and the Middle east are all dead. What does the literature of the new "culture" that replaced them have to say about the old cultures? Nothing flattering, I can assure you. History is not a dead affair that stopped in 1947 (or in 1990 when the Cold War ended). The events that moulded history are still going on.

Another view of "culture" is the question of how far back in history do you want to go? From when do you start recalling history?

To use an allegory, do you speak of living on floor "minus 5" of a 20 storey apartment in which the top ten floors are numbered from -10 at the top to -1 for the 11th floor. The tenth floor is numbered "floor zero" and the ground floor is floor +9.

When we use the Gregorian calendar all dates are positive numbers only after 0 AD. The history of cultures prior to that date is non relevant and one has to count backwards to speak of any event that occurred before then. You have to count backwards to get any kind of perspective about any people who lived before that date. This itself serves as a cultural impediment to recalling anything prior to a particular date. in addition to physically eliminating a culture by destroying art and literature and killing men, another culture-replacing trick would be to start a calendar from a particular date and impose it, so that "History begins" from that date. The best part about starting such a calendar is that 150 years down the line everyone would have forgotten how and why that particular date became significant and what existed prior to that date.

If we had a calendar system starting from the Egyptian civilization we would probably be in the year 6000 or something - in the 61st century. That would make events of 3000 years ago seem "recent" and the word "1000 BC" would not sound like such a big deal. But the Egyptian civilization "lost" and it has literally been consigned to history.

Which brings me to the point that under the onslaught of "religionists" who kill for a leader who does not show himself (and does not exist) any culture can die. The only cultures that are likely to survive some of the ravages of time are culture that have built up huge physical edifices and monuments that are difficult to destroy physically such as the pyramids of Egypt and South America, and the temples of India and South East Asia. Anything less than that and your culture does not stand a chance against religion, even if your culture is less bigoted, less misogynist, more egalitarian and more advanced than any existing religion. Of course no existing religion will admit that anything else can be superior. But then again Hitler thought he was the best.

When two groups of people with differing cultures meet, civilization demands that they do not start killing each other instantly. However religions insist that the other should be like them, and if they are not, they are wrong and can be killed. If a mindless war starts between two such groups, it will end only when one group is eliminated, or when different sides are of similar strength and they kill and kill and kill until they are tired of killing.

History records both these outcomes with respect to religion. In the case of the pre-Christian cultures of Europe and South America, and the pre-Islamic cultures of North Africa and the Middle East and Central Asia, all were eliminated.

But in Europe itself, after Christianity got established there were decades of religious war during which perhaps 10 to 20% of the population of Europe was wiped out by war and disease cause by mass migration of war refugees. The so called "Thirty years war" ended with a treaty and the establishment of the idea that the Catholic Church need not rule and Christian sects like the Protestants and Calvinists had a place in the scheme of things. This also led to ideas of "secular government" where the Church (the Catholic Church of Rome, that is) would keep out of state affairs.

In the middle East - Islam too split into sects who have been killing each other since, apart from written sanction in Islamic texts to eliminate opponents of an Islamic god.

Nobody can negotiate with religion. Religions reach a degree of peace only after killing and destruction and elimination of opponents. And when the opponents have been trashed, derided and all but forgotten, it gets easy to ask the question "What is wrong if one culture is replaced by another?". You cannot negotiate with religion because the non existent and imagined leader (god) will not negotiate and only people who speak for this god can be made to negotiate under pain of death. Do not for a minute imagine that there is anything good about organized religion.

Morality can exist perfectly well outside of religion. But anyone who wants to be moral and does not follow any religion has rapidly been killed by religionists, his wife taken by them to produce children who will be followers of that religion. This is a simple summary of the history of organized religion.

Randomly surfing the net to ferret out some information I came across some atheist forums and was tickled to find that one person on one such forum had this sardonic comment about god and the known universe:

"It blows my mind to conceive that if I were a god(goddess) that I would create a vast frozen dark vacuum and fill it with balls of hard dust. Some would be on fire. There would be billions of them. On one in one group I'd make a SimCity type of place. Lots of humans with lots of defeats, emotionally and physically and psychologically, lots of weird animals, insects, fish, lots of volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, droughts, hurricanes, forest fires, etc etc just to make life miserable, not to mention bacteria, viruses, disease, and also accidents that dismember, maim, make blind, etc. The humans would be bestowed with hate, greed, lust for power, lust for sex, lust for money, anger, violence, betrayal, deceit, and wars.

Then I'd sit back and watch it unfold. I'd plant a false rumour that praying to me will help them. I'd plant another false rumour that if you are really good and stupid enough to think I'm a good god and you'd want to spend eternity with me, just obey my rules and you can. Neither being true. And I'd expect everyone to love me. Oh, and there would be a few other gods around just to confuse things and stir the pot a bit more. "


To me, as a Hindu, atheism comes naturally. Hinduism is the only belief system that I know of that gives you a "cafeteria" approach towards god. If you want to believe in god - you can believe in any number that you choose to create. If you don't want to believe in god, then balls to god. Great big frozen ones.

But things are not so simple for atheists in other countries. A Turkish atheist speaks of political developments in Turkey and says of Islamic hadiths as being "words rumored to be said by a man 1300 years ago ". I point out to him that he could be tried for blasphemy for saying that. He replies that he would not be arrested or tried - he would simply have his head bashed in.

In the US it is said that about 10% of people are atheist - but apparently they are viewed with a degree of suspicion. "How can you trust a person who does not believe in god?". American atheists seem to have a curious set of concerns of their own - a set of emotions and thoughts that I had never come across before.

How to send your child to a school that does not force god and religion on him? Especially if you live in the "Bible belt" of America. How to break the news to your parents that you are atheist? (Is it that difficult?). How to convince the stuffed full of themselves Christian believers that atheists can have morals? What to tell your five year old when he asked you "What is god?". The situation seems easier in Britain. Obviously atheism does not exist officially in countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. The atheist is rapidly despatched to god who does as he pleases with him. If man is based on god as a model - then I guess sexual abuse by god is a possibility.

It is only when I compare the situation with other countries do I get an insight into the nature and place of atheism and atheists in India. Hinduism allows atheism primarily because "god" does not have a central place in the scheme of things. God is one of the choices that a Hindu can take if that is what he prefers. But since this process has been around for a few millennia the Hindu somehow seems to imagine that atheism is an internal Hindu matter that is non existent for people who are not Hindu.

A Hindu would not instinctively link the English word "atheism" with Hindu atheist practice. But atheism it is and as a result the Hindu ends up having two characteristics:

First, a Hindu is allowed to be completely disdainful or disrespectful of Hindu gods. This is what allows Karunanidhi, an avowed atheist, to speak derisively of Rama. It also allows funny situations like a judge summoning two Hindu gods to court as they have been named party to a dispute.

On the other hand, the Hindu is expected to be equally respectful to the other person's right to be a believer, no matter what one's personal choice or opinion about god might be. That means that the Hindu must not be disrespectful of a Christian or Islamic god - just in case he is hurting someone's sentiment.

This actually leads to some interesting consequences.

In a Hindu majority country like India the acceptance of atheism makes it easier to swallow the concept of secularism. And while all Indians, Hindu or not are soaked in religion, there are a sizable segment of Hindus who are legally and officially allowed to reject Hindu gods and be atheist. This creates a community of secular Indians who can be joined by like thinking Muslims and Christians - who might themselves be overwhelmed by the fanatical believers among them if not for the buffer of atheism that exists.

However the average Hindu is naive and tends to go around wearing blinkers not realizing that anyone in the world can be an atheist and that atheism is not a characteristic known only to Hindus. The Hindu does not instinctively understand if a person with a Christian name or a Muslim name chooses to be atheist. To the Hindu, the choice of atheism exists only for Hindus. The Hindu imagines that if a person has a Christian or Muslim name he is not a Hindu and is therefore automatically a devout follower of Christianity or Islam. These people cannot be atheists and since they cannot be atheists their "choice" of being theists must be respected and protected. This is Indian secularism perhaps?

So I suspect that while it is fine and dandy for a Hindu to be derisive of Hindu theism, the minute a non Hindu says that he is atheist - he is subjected to cross questioning that typically brings down the rickety edifice of religion as it should be.

When a "suspected" Christian or Muslim is heard being derisive of Christianity or Islam the Hindu feels that this person has "Hindu beliefs" (of atheism) and worries that the "Christian" or 'Muslim" atheist, by being derisive of Christianity or Islam might be a rabble rouser because devout Christians and Muslims are wont to react with anger at anyone questioning their beliefs. By the same token, any theist who speaks derisively of anyone else's god is seen as a potential rabble rouser.

I wonder if this in any way explains India's contradictions. We support the right of anyone to hold any belief. But the minute he or she expresses a belief that hurts someone else - we strike down that person as a rabble rouser. That is, after all, what we did to Taslima Nasreen.

Any event that occurs in the world as a result of people interacting, or doing things to other people is motivated by urges, thoughts and desires, and the action is met with certain reactions based on the multiple personalities and mental states of the people who see or experience that action.

There are certain common human reactions that are important to understand when one is studying controversial topics like terrorism, religious fundamentalism, geopolitical events or even simple things like interaction of people on a web forum.

I would like to list and describe a few common reactions or modes of interaction between people.

Let me start with "cognitive dissonance".

The easiest description for cognitive dissonance would be "the anger and denial that you feel when you are told that something that you had thought was true and good for a long time is described as being false, bad or wrong"

If you believe that red wine is good for you and have cultivated the habit of drinking red wine as often as possible, and suddenly one day medical research reveals that red wine is actually harmful, and can cause cancer, the feeling that you will have is "cognitive dissonance". You DO NOT want to believe the new irritating information that not only upsets a belief you have had for a long time, but with require you to change your habits and beliefs. It is difficult to accept or admit the truth and there is a natural human tendency to deny, get angry, and try and find reasons to continue holding on to the old belief

Cognitive dissonance is often seen among religious fundamentalists when they are forced to face up to negative effects of a religion that is dear to them.

The second significant way in which humans interact has been called by me as the "Torn shirt versus open fly argument"

The metaphorical torn shirt versus open fly argument is a description of the interaction of two people, let me call them person A and person B.

Person A points out to B that his shirt is torn.

Person B retorts, "So what if my shirt is torn? Your fly is open"

Notable in this argument is that the open fly of person A will in no way mitigate or change the fact of B's torn shirt. Person B speaks of the open fly as though the open fly somehow compensates for and justifies his torn shirt, and might successfully divert the subject of discussion away from the fact that his shirt remains torn.

This sort of reaction again is seen with reference to religious fundamentalism. An apologist for a fundamentalist will react to accusations of fundamentalism by pointing out examples of everyone else who is a fundamentalist of any type. The argument is specious because the fact of one group's fundamentalism is in no way changed or improved by the fact that another group is faulty or wrong in some way. Both are wrong, but the argument only serves to divert attention away from a topic of discussion.

The third mode of human interaction has been described by me in the form of a game - called the "You farted" game.

The "game" or trick is to get a person on the defensive with an unprovoked accusation. The agenda and tone is set by the accuser and the passive personality goes on the defensive right from the start.

A group of people are sitting together - say 6 or 7 friends in a dorm. Suddenly the foul smell of a fart wafts up.

An accuser personality (call him 'A') picks out a passive personality ('P') and says "Hey P, you farted"

P protests "No I did not"

A: "Yes you did"

P: "Shut up and stop accusing me"

A:"Heh Heh. It's OK. No need to cover your guilt by getting angry. I know you farted. We don't mind - just warn us next time.

What happens in this exchange is that the Accuser 'A' has the initiative all the time. He sets the pace, and he sets the Agenda. He may actually have farted himself, but he gets away giving the impression that "P" is guilty.

The "You farted" game is played time and time again in real life. Often, an erring party comes up with an accusation that they are "hated and discriminated against". Whether this allegation is true or not is immaterial because it puts others on the defensive and the accuser puts the onus of proving that his accusation is false on the other party.

There are a few other tricks that humans use on other humans to avoid being pinned down with uncomfortable truths, but I will describe them later with exmples. The three that I have detailed are significant and common, and I will refer to them repeatedly when I write about real people doing real things in the world.

I never thought I was a blog man. 

I still don't know if I am one. I belong to a few mailing lists and fora on the internet - all of which pre-date blogging. And i write one heck of a lot. And there are people who read what i write and interact - so I never really thought I might want to blog at all.

However  find that I have thoughts welling up within me that I must write. And putting some of those thoughts down is difficult, partly because some of my thoughts are radical and controversial, but largely because they are inappropriate for most of the lists and fora I take part in. So let me give this one a try..