The Number of Sand Grains in Calicut Beach, or Writing in Water

So much of reading and so less of writing. This is bad. Even though reading gives me a lot of strength, it is writing that stabilizes the strength thus acquired. While reading makes me more confused, writing gives me clarity. From an information theoretic perspective, reading causes an increase in entropy, while writing helps me reduce the entropy by efficiently decoding, or, equivalently, understanding, or grasping, or putting in the right light, the information ("information" in the sense used in "information technology" not in "information theory"; instead, one could almost always, i.e., with negligibly small probability of being misunderstood, use the word "noise") that I have gathered through reading. (Remember, the more the entropy, the more is the disorder, or uncertainty, or confusion.) That is why I decided to write this post. It came as an inner urge, almost similar to the one human beings experience prior to defecation. The urge was to write a serious post after a long  while. (In our most golden -- the price of gold is at the record peak in history-- times, a blog post is serious if it required little effort to write and would require onerous effort to read. My goal is, honestly, such a post.)  However, I had to struggle to fix a topic. For me, topics are plenty, because the unwritten words (which are written in the mind) substantially exceed in trillions and trillions of bytes (1 byte = 8 bits, 1 bit = 1 binary digit, and binary digits are nothing and everything, or, in other words, none and one) compared to the written words. Then I fixed a contemporary topic, which I assign the reader to decipher from below, after reading the post entirely, and then doing some tantric deconstruction (to do this one has to be well versed in tantras and mantras and pujas and hypocrisy). If the reader does not want such unnecessary burdens or feels not qualified to do this, I urge not to read this post. I am a ruthless writer, and on top of that I am not going to call you "the respected reader" or "the most diligent reader" or any of that shit. I expect the reader to be as conceited and therefore as stupid -- and vice versa -- as I am.

Breaking from the conventions of the previous posts in this blog, I would like to dedicate this post to Jean Paul Sartre, who taught me how to "write", which I, being unscrupulous, have managed not to realize in practice.

The issue of Mullapperiyar dam is now raging at its peak between Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This may be attributed to the facts that (1) it is rainy season in Kerala and hence the dam is inundated with water, (2) there has been a few earth quakes in the past few months in the areas surrounding the dam, (3) a junk movie "Dam 999" has been released in India, which, despite having got the permission for screening from the censor board of India, has been banned in Tamil Nadu by its Government, reasoning that it would mislead and hurt the sentiments of the people, (4) and the Malayalam television media has taken up the issue with paramount importance. Although the panic created by the media among the people by making them believe that the dam will collapse today or tomorrow or even in the next nano-second may sound illogical enough to be fake, the threat posed by the weakness of the dam is truly of paramount importance. While the lease agreement for the dam between Kerala and Tamil Nadu is actually for nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine (999) years, it is clear that a dam will not stay that long. While constructing a new dam as an immediate precaution to save the people from its possible yet unpredictable collapse seems to be a solution, the bitter fact that the new dam will soon (in another hundred years?) turn out to be a similar threat to the same people, or precisely their future generation, is a paradox that has been pointed out by some thinking fanatics living in isolated islands.

You might have noticed that I have written the previous paragraph in the most insipid manner, keeping myself distant from the issue, and adopting a very neutral, diplomatic tone. You must understand that this is not because I am a Malayali who is living in Tamil Nadu, so that I have to satisfy both my Tamil friends and Malayali friends thereby saving myself from the otherwise imminent peril. Having dedicated this post to Sartre, will my super-ego ever spare me from the guilt generated by doing so? Though I conceal my fear in my heart, the fact is that I am more interested in something else.

Yes, more interestingly, though the slogan "water for Tamil Nadu, safety for Kerala" formulated by the Kerala Government sounds post-modern and liberal enough, and sounds to be in terms with the modern thoughts and moral sense, however contemptuous and worthless this sense may be, the Tamil Nadu Government's and political parties' adamant rejection of the plea for co-operation to construct a new dam by the Kerala Government gives us some glimpses to the nature of (modern) India. Particularly, the fact remains that India has not yet become an integral country, but stays divided by language, culture, caste, religion, location, and other identities. The Mullapperiyar issue exemplifies the failure of a group of people (or their leaders) to understand the need of another group of people living in the neighbourhood in the same country, only differing in language and culture. Here, being Tamil or Malayali is not the issue. The fact that I, the author of this post, am a Malayali is also not a very important issue (notwithstanding that I have mentally broken free from such an narrow identity). The true issue is that this kind of division exists not only between Tamils and Malayali, but between Tamils and Kannadigas, Kannadigas and Marathis, Kannadigas and Malayalis, Marathis and Hindi-speaking people, Biharis and Bengalis, Kashmiris and other Indians, and so on and so on. Such division can be seen even between people living in the same state, speaking the same language (e.g. South Kerala and North Kerala). A serious and active issue Similar to the Mullapperiyar is the demand for the division of Andra Pradhesh into two, which, again, reflects the mistrust and jealousy between peoples living in different geographical locations within a single state, speaking the same language notwithstanding some colloquial vernacular differences. 

The solution to this most important problem India as an integral nation has been facing can be achieved, however, not by creating an all encompassing Indian identity, for no identity can be truly all encompassing, but, I believe, by educating the people in values concerning freedom and liberty, both social and individual, thereby helping them to mature to a mental state in which they can live peacefully with others. In a country, from where a painter, whether he is great or not, had to flee for using his freedom of expression in his painting; in a country, where a study on different versions of Ramayana told in different places and countries is removed from the academic syllabus for religious reasons; in a country, where a movie or book is banned whenever it is against some narrow ideology held by a group; in a country, err... I'm bored to continue giving these examples, believe me; by the way, what is the number of sand grains in Calicut beach? 

All I mean to say is that in this country, such a solution will not succeed -- I say this with boundless optimism (ideologically, I must have used "pessimism", but, unfortunately, pessimism is not the ideology I have sided with). This country needs a gang-bang change, not the pseudo-moral revolution preached by Anna Hazare and people like him, but a truly violent revolution. Wait a minute, do not misunderstand me here. I used the term violent in the same sense used by Slavoj Zizek when he said almost like this: "Hitler was not violent enough; Gandhi was more violent than Hitler [in challenging the basic structure of the prevailing [British] system]" (emphases might have been added, I'm not sure).

Tail piece: Perhaps the Mullapperiyar issue also shows us how a majority of Indian people are deeply influenced and ideologically possessed by a minority of leaders, politicians and institutions.

S. Palakkal,
Nov 30, 2011,
Chennai.