Word/Phrase/Sentence of the Day

Machhimar. As in Akhil Maharashtra Machhimar Kriti Samiti.

Home-made shortbread

It's been extremely dull. No new questions, no more flashing lightbulbs. So I thought I would put up a little baking update. When the chocolate craving hits, we bake. We first hit google, ofcourse (and occassionally come across delicious and easy recipes like these toffee bars).

Keep the chopped almonds and chocolate ready...

Take out the golden brown shortbread (who knew it would be so easy to make at home!)

Stick it back in the oven after ^...

...so it can look like this.

Throw in the toasted almonds...

And yummy :D

(Once I get the hang of the new camera, the photos will begin to improve :P )

Word/Phrase/Sentence of the Day

1. आकाशवाणी; isn't it such an apt and expressive word?

2.      "I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
                   I'm going off the rails on a crazy train

                                  Let's Go!"- Crazy Train, Black Sabbath*

3.   "Hole in the sky, gateway to Heaven
          Window in time, through it I fly"
                       - Hole in the Sky, Black Sabbath*

*I have to say. Black Sabbath beats Maiden hands down in the lyrics department.

Of Computers and Government Servants

Computer basics 101:

On the modalities of the internet: how the computer connects with the world-

 "That number will make handshake with network."

  

 While figuring out how to save a file on MS Word-

Instructor: Supporting staff! Just come here.

Instructor contd.(sotto voce): Which version of MS Office is this?

Supporting Staff: Sir, 2007, Sir.

Instructor: Ah. (To the class-) Actually this is new version.

Today I attended a workshop on computer basics at my job-that-I’m-not-allowed-to-blog about*. When they said basics-they really meant it, although I enjoyed refreshing my 'knowledge' of RAMs and ROMs. There is always something new to learn.

The gentleman who imparted the training fit the stereotype of the first generation of (North Indian) computer engineers in India who landed up in government jobs. Bespeckled, incompletely dyed, oily, spiky hair and computer knowledge that is visibly outdated. He didn't look very enthused by his subject (although to be slightly fairer to him- he did have an audience of mostly 50 year olds.), which got me thinking about government servants and Talent.

I'm a fan of government servants and services. I think they have a very important role to play in the development of a country, and I shall continue to swear by MTNL, Air India, DTC and tribe till I discover a good enough reason not to. 

And I don't see why the government cannot have bright minds delivering computer 101s instead of tired, unethusiastic middle-aged men. I wonder if this is a chicken and egg question- does government service infuse lack of enthusiasm and mediocrity into certain governtment servants or is it the other way around?

Leave your thoughts on this, and help me identify another thread to be explored during my MPhil.

Till then- I leave you with some.

*I’ve been told this declaration makes me sound like a RAW agent (by a friend who occassionally, inexplicably, adopts the pseudonym  'Pinky'. Hello there, DDLJ!).

UPDATE: I am VERY pleased to note that the above gentleman was one of his kind. The other middle-aged, North Indian government servant who took class proved that not all of them are a stereotype.

Unintentionally continued.

Whither tandav?
Whither sleep?
When the newly awakened
Surreal, Manipal led dreams
Are brutally snuffed;
Welcome moral agony
And for the next ten months-
Atithi Devo Bhava.


4/08/2010

A blackhole experienced from the inside

There is a rumble of thunder stuck inside my head
Like Shiva's tandav
It moves, courses
From the eyes to the tongue
And back into the head.

3/08/2010

The Ethical Dilemma

I was going to post this yesterday, but I ran out of energy.

Can you de-link any form of knowledge production from ethical responsibility? Is there such a thing as 'objective' production of knowledge? Can any form of knowledge be 'neutral', 'pure', ideology free? I belong to the group that says no. I do not believe in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, art for the sake of art, theory for the sake of theory. I go so far as to call such assertions morally reprehensible and intellectually vacuous.

In 'Science and the Ethics of Curiosity'*, Sundar Sarukkai traces the evolution of the concept of curiosity and shoots a cannonball through the age old argument of shifting the ethical responsibility away from scientists to the users of science. That is, a knife is not inherently good or bad-it is what you do with it that will determine its goodness or 'badness'. The obvious extension of this example will be to include nuclear energy, GM food, GM people, for starters, in that category as well.

One encounters this ethical problem in the world of research too many times. You pick a topic and produce Information around it: you cover all arguments and do not take a stand, because it will compromise the quality of your research, and God-forbid your running into a biased researcher!! I'm currently interning/working with an organisation that sets great store by non-partisan research. My work is supposed to be partisan, but I'm supposed to be non-judgemental about what I do. Mine is but to do and die, mine is not to judge why. On the last day of training they likened our work to that of a lawyer-who is not allowed to judge his client, he is supposed to generate evidence, and it is the job of the court to pass judgement.

I wonder if a lawyer faces similar moral agony while defending someone they know is guilty of a heinous crime. I think a lot of lawyers see their work as many scientists like to see theirs- as morally neutral. I understand that every individual has a right to the best defence she can get, but how do you defend actions that should not be defended? I'm aware this is a dangerous line of argument, because it places the onus on the person who is acting. If there is no universal good or bad (and I don't believe there is, even though THAT becomes another tricky line to tread), then the world becomes captive to belief systems. It would mean that my actions would be open to judgement to everybody-which would be okay if theoretically I had access to everybody. Having access to everybody would mean that by some law of chance (and law of limited originality) I would come across someone who's ideology matched with mine enough for the other person to take on the job of defending my reprehensible action-which is not reprehensible to that person-with a clear conscience. What I'm saying, I guess is that in such a scenario we eliminate the kind of moral quandary I'm concerned with because now everybody defends an 'innocent' person.

But obviously, if I do not have access to everybody then that means I have no idea what my chances are of getting a defence should I need it. So I might as well be arbitrarily picked up and thrown in jail, goodbye judicial system. However, I'm still not convinced that this is good enough reason for people to do something that they find morally reprehensible just because otherwise society as we know it will collapse. I think society as we know it collapses every second, and we have to re-think and re-know society again and again and again. We have a judicial system in place-but who does it really work for? How different is it in practice from the situation where the powerful could anyway pick up and throw whoever they liked in jail. How far can we ignore practice in favour of theory. Can/should we?









*Leave a comment if you want the paper emailed to you.