I have been busy completing some mathematics work with Peter Scott who is in Melbourne for a month. One paper which was first out in 2007 is nearing completion now with new material added during the last year. It is about 125 pages long on JSJ decomposition of Poincaré Duality pairs and deals with many loose ends that have bothered us. The second with the same theme ( Lawrence Reeves is also involved) is shorter and compares various such decomposition. These complete some of our long standing concerns. Then there is one more long paper which is essentially complete and has to be tidied up. These may not interest others but it is a satisfactory conclusion of problems that engaged us for a long time.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Vivekananda on inclusiveness
I read a lot on nonsense by Vivekananda. But this indicates different things. And then there is his enduring legacy Ramakrishna Mission which has monks of various religions. One of the monks is an old friend Mahan Maharaj. He liked this.
‘Our watchword will be acceptance and inclusion’: Nine memos from Vivekananda to Hindutva warriors
‘Our watchword will be acceptance and inclusion’: Nine memos from Vivekananda to Hindutva warriors
Monday, January 13, 2020
A poem by Alisetty Prabhakara about his wife
‘‘కలగా పులగంగా కలసిపోయిన రోజుల్లో
ఇంచుమించు ఒకే కంచంలో
ఇంద్రధనస్సుల్ని తుంచుకుని తిన్న రోజుల్లో
మా గుండెల్లో సమస్యలు మండని రోజుల్లో
సిగరెట్ పీకలాంటి నన్ను
సిగలో తరుముకొని
గాజు కుప్పెల్లాంటి నా కళ్ళలోనే
ఆశల అగరొత్తులు వెలిగించుకుందే తప్ప
తులతూగే ఐశ్వర్యమో
తులం బంగారమో కావాలని
ఏనాడూ ప్రాధేయ పడలేదు''
More about him here https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/అలిశెట్టి_ప్రభాకర్
More about him here https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/అలిశెట్టి_ప్రభాకర్
A recent comment by Pramathanath Sastry
Pramathanath Sastry comments in a post of Balasubramanian Anantharaman on his Facebook wall.
The premise that the design of the constitution is such that terrible things were inevitable. Constitutions are always imperfect documents. And it is applied on the ground via interpretations. I don’t even know where to begin regarding your statement. Suggests because we are not a confederation it is all unnatural and hence this pox upon us. (Wake up and smell the coffee; every codification, every constitution, is in the end unnatural.) That certain high culture stuff like Bheeshma in Yudha Parva not being in the document or Ain-e-akbari not being in the document is the reason for the horrors visited upon us. Cynical me knows that the US constitution was interpreted in very different ways at different times without any amendments to the constitution. And that no document can cover the edges of the self perception of a nation (Manipur). In the end it is us who are the problem. Our bigotry. The churning. The centripetal forces towards the centre and the centrifugal forces (Kashmir, Manipur), no document could have taken care of them. Good people could have. A generous liberal people could have. Those are independent of the various constitutions which are possible from a broadly liberal menu. Sedition is not in the constitution. Article 372 which says that any existing law in the IPC would continue to be in force until modified, is why sedition is in the law books. The IPC could have easily been modified without amending the constitution. I am not defending the constitution. I just find this belief that it, not society, is the root cause just a bunch of nonsense. It could have been interpreted a million ways. But judges, ministers, policeman, are from our society and that whole thingamajig has a certain direction today. It is us. Rather than seeing a mismatch between the society and the constitution, I see actually a movement towards a match with the views of the dominant, something all judicial and political systems manage. The brief liberal court of the US (30 years at best in 245 years) was an anomaly.
The premise that the design of the constitution is such that terrible things were inevitable. Constitutions are always imperfect documents. And it is applied on the ground via interpretations. I don’t even know where to begin regarding your statement. Suggests because we are not a confederation it is all unnatural and hence this pox upon us. (Wake up and smell the coffee; every codification, every constitution, is in the end unnatural.) That certain high culture stuff like Bheeshma in Yudha Parva not being in the document or Ain-e-akbari not being in the document is the reason for the horrors visited upon us. Cynical me knows that the US constitution was interpreted in very different ways at different times without any amendments to the constitution. And that no document can cover the edges of the self perception of a nation (Manipur). In the end it is us who are the problem. Our bigotry. The churning. The centripetal forces towards the centre and the centrifugal forces (Kashmir, Manipur), no document could have taken care of them. Good people could have. A generous liberal people could have. Those are independent of the various constitutions which are possible from a broadly liberal menu. Sedition is not in the constitution. Article 372 which says that any existing law in the IPC would continue to be in force until modified, is why sedition is in the law books. The IPC could have easily been modified without amending the constitution. I am not defending the constitution. I just find this belief that it, not society, is the root cause just a bunch of nonsense. It could have been interpreted a million ways. But judges, ministers, policeman, are from our society and that whole thingamajig has a certain direction today. It is us. Rather than seeing a mismatch between the society and the constitution, I see actually a movement towards a match with the views of the dominant, something all judicial and political systems manage. The brief liberal court of the US (30 years at best in 245 years) was an anomaly.
An old article by Khushwant Singh
Came across this superb piece says Dipankar Khasnabish:
On Feb 15, 1970 Khushwant Singh wrote under the headline
'Why I am an Indian'.
I did not have any choice; I was born one. If the good Lord had consulted me on the subject I might have chosen a country more affluent, less crowded, less censorious in matters of food and drink, unconcerned with personal equations and free of religious bigotry.
Am I proud of being an India? I can't really answer this one. I can scarcely take credit for the achievements of my forefathers. And I have little reason to be proud of what we are doing today. On balance, I would say, 'No, I am not proud of being an Indian.'
'Why don't you get out and settle in some other country?' Once again, I have very little choice. All the countries I might like to live in have restricted quotas for emigrants; most of them are white and have prejudice against coloured people. In any case I feel more relaxed and at home in India. I dislike many things in my country--mostly the government. I know the government is never the same as the country, but it never stops trying to appear in that garb. This is where I belong, and this is where I intend to live and die. Of course, I like going abroad. Living is easier, wine and food are better, women are more forthcoming--it's more fun. However, I soon get tired of all those things and want to get back to my dung-heap and be among my loud-mouthed, sweaty, smelly countrymen. I am like my kinsmen in Africa and England and elsewhere. My head tells me it's better to live abroad, my belly tells me it is more fulfilling to be in 'phoren' but my heart tells me 'get back to Ind'. Each time I return home and drive through the stench of bare-bottomed defecators that line the road from Santa Crux airport to the city I ask myself:
"'Breathes there a man with soul so dead
who never to himself hath said
this is my own land, my native land?"
I can scarcely breathe, but I yell, 'Yeah, this is my native land. I don't like it, but I love it!'
Are you an Indian first and a Punjabi or Sikh second? Or is it the other round? I don't like the way those questions are framed. I am all three at the same time. If I was denied my Punjabiness or my community tradition, I would refuse to call myself Indian. I am Indian, Punjabi and Sikh. And even so I have a patriotic kinship one who says I am 'Indian, Hindu and Haryanvi' or 'I am Indian, Moplah Muslim and Malayali' or 'I am Indian, Christian and Assamese'. I want to retain my religious and linguistic identity without in any way making them exclusive.
I am convinced that in our guaranteed diversity is our strength as a nation. As soon as you try to obliterate regional languages in favour of one 'national' language or religion, in the name of some one Indian credo, you will destroy the unity of the country. Twice was our Indianness challenged: in 1962 by the Chinese; in 1965 by the Pakistanis. Then, despite our many differences of language, religion and faith, we rose as one to defend our country. In the ultimate analysis, it is the consciousness of the frontiers that makes a nation. We have proved that we are one nation.
What then this talk about Indianising people who are already Indian? And has anyone any right to arrogate to himself the right to decide who is and who is not a good Indian?
(Khushwant Singh's Editor's Page, Edited by Rahul Singh, IBH)
On Feb 15, 1970 Khushwant Singh wrote under the headline
'Why I am an Indian'.
I did not have any choice; I was born one. If the good Lord had consulted me on the subject I might have chosen a country more affluent, less crowded, less censorious in matters of food and drink, unconcerned with personal equations and free of religious bigotry.
Am I proud of being an India? I can't really answer this one. I can scarcely take credit for the achievements of my forefathers. And I have little reason to be proud of what we are doing today. On balance, I would say, 'No, I am not proud of being an Indian.'
'Why don't you get out and settle in some other country?' Once again, I have very little choice. All the countries I might like to live in have restricted quotas for emigrants; most of them are white and have prejudice against coloured people. In any case I feel more relaxed and at home in India. I dislike many things in my country--mostly the government. I know the government is never the same as the country, but it never stops trying to appear in that garb. This is where I belong, and this is where I intend to live and die. Of course, I like going abroad. Living is easier, wine and food are better, women are more forthcoming--it's more fun. However, I soon get tired of all those things and want to get back to my dung-heap and be among my loud-mouthed, sweaty, smelly countrymen. I am like my kinsmen in Africa and England and elsewhere. My head tells me it's better to live abroad, my belly tells me it is more fulfilling to be in 'phoren' but my heart tells me 'get back to Ind'. Each time I return home and drive through the stench of bare-bottomed defecators that line the road from Santa Crux airport to the city I ask myself:
"'Breathes there a man with soul so dead
who never to himself hath said
this is my own land, my native land?"
I can scarcely breathe, but I yell, 'Yeah, this is my native land. I don't like it, but I love it!'
Are you an Indian first and a Punjabi or Sikh second? Or is it the other round? I don't like the way those questions are framed. I am all three at the same time. If I was denied my Punjabiness or my community tradition, I would refuse to call myself Indian. I am Indian, Punjabi and Sikh. And even so I have a patriotic kinship one who says I am 'Indian, Hindu and Haryanvi' or 'I am Indian, Moplah Muslim and Malayali' or 'I am Indian, Christian and Assamese'. I want to retain my religious and linguistic identity without in any way making them exclusive.
I am convinced that in our guaranteed diversity is our strength as a nation. As soon as you try to obliterate regional languages in favour of one 'national' language or religion, in the name of some one Indian credo, you will destroy the unity of the country. Twice was our Indianness challenged: in 1962 by the Chinese; in 1965 by the Pakistanis. Then, despite our many differences of language, religion and faith, we rose as one to defend our country. In the ultimate analysis, it is the consciousness of the frontiers that makes a nation. We have proved that we are one nation.
What then this talk about Indianising people who are already Indian? And has anyone any right to arrogate to himself the right to decide who is and who is not a good Indian?
(Khushwant Singh's Editor's Page, Edited by Rahul Singh, IBH)
Saturday, January 11, 2020
More on anti-CAA protests
Anti-CAA protests: A reiteration of people power over political muscle by Ankur Bhardwaj
Some earlier articles from the middleDecember 2019:
Scars of CAB protests will further burn bridges between northeast and rest of India Suhas Palshikar
The morning after CAB: It will be a mistake to rely just on Supreme Court by Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Some earlier articles from the middleDecember 2019:
Scars of CAB protests will further burn bridges between northeast and rest of India Suhas Palshikar
The morning after CAB: It will be a mistake to rely just on Supreme Court by Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Arjun Appadurai on the current situation in India
Three Observations From India's Past to Contextualise the Present Struggle Seems to be a perceptive article but I am not sure whether he gets the whole picture and whether it is a guide to what is coming. To me an earlier article What Women from a Slum Near AMU Can Teach CAA-NRC Protesters is more perceptive.
Check also Mukul Kesavan article posted earlier An evil hour. A quote “ According to him [Suhas
Alshikar] the problem with liberals is that they expected abstract ideas to win political victories whereas the truth was that in real life “[d]emocratic struggles for high principles do not happen in a vacuum.” The only way that liberals can prevail against the BJP’s clear-headed majoritarianism is if their “... principles [were] married to lived realities and actual group anxieties.”“
Check also Mukul Kesavan article posted earlier An evil hour. A quote “ According to him [Suhas
Alshikar] the problem with liberals is that they expected abstract ideas to win political victories whereas the truth was that in real life “[d]emocratic struggles for high principles do not happen in a vacuum.” The only way that liberals can prevail against the BJP’s clear-headed majoritarianism is if their “... principles [were] married to lived realities and actual group anxieties.”“
Wednesday, January 08, 2020
Georgi Abratov’s prescient warning
“ In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had warned: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”” from Freedom without constraints: how the US squandered its cold war victory by Andrew Bacevich.
Monday, January 06, 2020
Photo essay on women left behind
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/world/africa/migrants-women-work.html
Left Behind by Migrant Husbands, Women Break the Rules and Go to Work
Left Behind by Migrant Husbands, Women Break the Rules and Go to Work
Reconciling capitalism and socialism
Sort of political economy in a single lesson by Seth Ackerman The Red and Black “ What is needed is a structure that allows autonomous firms to produce and trade goods for the market, aiming to generate a surplus of output over input — while keeping those firms public and preventing their surplus from being appropriated by a narrow class of capitalists. Under this type of system, workers can assume any degree of control they like over the management of their firms, and any “profits” can be socialized— that is, they can truly function as a signal, rather than as a motive force. But the precondition of such a system is the socialization of the means of production — structured in a way that preserves the existence of a capital market. How can all this be done?
......
The lesson here is that the transformation to a different system does not have to be catastrophic. Of course, the situation I’m describing would be a revolutionary one — but it wouldn’t have to involve the total collapse of the old society and the Promethean conjuring of something entirely unrecognizable in its place.“
Can this sort of thing be accomplished without bureaucracy by some sort of block chain mechanism?
The Light on the Hill: A Reply to Seth Ackerman by John Quiggin. Some more can be found google search.
......
The lesson here is that the transformation to a different system does not have to be catastrophic. Of course, the situation I’m describing would be a revolutionary one — but it wouldn’t have to involve the total collapse of the old society and the Promethean conjuring of something entirely unrecognizable in its place.“
Can this sort of thing be accomplished without bureaucracy by some sort of block chain mechanism?
The Light on the Hill: A Reply to Seth Ackerman by John Quiggin. Some more can be found google search.
An overview of Saudi-Iran conflict
In four parts A Tale of Oil and Fire: The Saudi-Iran Conflict from Brown Pundits.
Saturday, January 04, 2020
Perepa Joshi remembering his father.
Prepa Puran Chandra Joshi was a classmate and friend since 1964. I found these videos uploaded by his son in a meeting remembering Perela Mrityanjayudu.
https://youtu.be/01h9EgyfofE
https://youtu.be/IAxXvCvHUIQ
A report about the current protests in India about CAA
More from the grass roots level What Women from a Slum Near AMU Can Teach CAA-NRC Protesters. It seems different from the posts by academics. Possibly this kind of development has better chances of surviving and thriving.
Bushfires in Australia
Why firefighters are so worried about the inferno to come Mostly about Victoria.
From Victoria Thanks dhal: Sikh group to the rescue with hundreds of free curries
And from somewhere https://i.redd.it/85wma5kdmj841.jpg
And from somewhere https://i.redd.it/85wma5kdmj841.jpg
An opinion piece on Suleimani assassination
The Suleimani assassination goes against Trump’s policy – but not his character “ That he will get away with this, despite all the bien pensantwails and warnings, just as he got away with the Jerusalem embassy move. That while an expert such as Sanam Vakil of Chatham House might say that “this time the gloves will be off”, and that Iran will no longer hide behind the plausible deniability offered by proxies but will “strike back and strike back directly”, there is nothing to fear because Tehran will be smart enough to know its own limits, restrained by the certainty that the US could answer any attempt at retaliation with devastating force.”
Thursday, January 02, 2020
Tyler Cowen with Abhijit Banerjee
My conversation with Abhijit Banerjee. A little part:
“COWEN: How well do you think economists understand economic growth more generally?
“COWEN: How well do you think economists understand economic growth more generally?
BANERJEE: I think they don’t understand it. This is the point we make in the book. I think we understand some very basic insights, one being the one that my colleague, Bob Solow, made very clear, which is that growth has a tendency to run out, that once you used up your best talent and your best capital and your best locations, there’s going to be less and less so. And I think that’s probably the only thing which has been pretty consistently borne out: that fast growth slows down. China’s slowing now.
And there’s nothing tragic about it. It’s a normal way of things. I think that the question is more — the thing that we don’t understand is what makes that happen sooner or later, more or less, et cetera. Brazil grew for 20 years, extremely fast, between 1960 and 1980, and then essentially stopped for 20 years. Why do those kinds of things happen? That we don’t understand. I think we’re lousy at predicting growth in general.”
Tyler Cowen on Modi
Tyler Cowen in a recent post What to think of Modi these days:
“Nonetheless I find most of the extant commentary on Modi fairly misleading and/or naive.
As this outsider sees it, India’s secular democracy was never liberal. It had certain de facto liberal elements, but largely out of low levels of state capacity, necessitating a kind of tolerance but of course also leading to a very sub-par infrastructure. Furthermore, it has been commonly described by political scientists as a “democracy without accountability.” National voting has so much to do with religion, caste, and other particularistic principles that Indian democracy never enforced superior practical performance as it should have.”
“Nonetheless I find most of the extant commentary on Modi fairly misleading and/or naive.
As this outsider sees it, India’s secular democracy was never liberal. It had certain de facto liberal elements, but largely out of low levels of state capacity, necessitating a kind of tolerance but of course also leading to a very sub-par infrastructure. Furthermore, it has been commonly described by political scientists as a “democracy without accountability.” National voting has so much to do with religion, caste, and other particularistic principles that Indian democracy never enforced superior practical performance as it should have.”
Wednesday, January 01, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)