Every other day, I open the ibnlive website to get more and more irritated. I used to think no one could irritate me more than the professional interrogator Mr. Karan Thapar, who almost does both the parts of the show, asking questions and answering them, without switching chairs. To my dismay, there is now Ms. Sagarika Ghose to add to the irritation. I would still bear it if the discussion would bear meaningful food for thought. But, nah…everyday they come up with extremely ambiguous, utterly meaningless and thoroughly convoluted questions that are supposed to have either yes or no answer. The questions are so well targeted towards the jingoistic cynical audience that you do not have to wait eagerly for the host to announce the result of so called SMS poll. Then the panel tries to discuss on that question and the host tries her best to resist them from speaking anything that does not fall into the category of either yes or no. I do not blame them. No one gave them the option of choosing, not choosing or defining the globalization. They now have to live with its repercussions, one of them – “digitalization”.
Let me explain, what is digital, for those, to whom its meaning is not so obvious. The entire digital revolution has its basis in the use of binary number system. It has only two numerals 0, 1 or in general, it represents everything under the sun using only two basic states as the decimal system would use ten states from 0 to 9. Fortunately, the nature does not restrict itself to such constraints. It manifests itself in the form of a continuum, which comprises of every possible state. Therefore, the whole attempt is to describe things, in the best possible manner, using some combination of two states. Now, I know it works nicely for machines but I have my reservations when it comes to humans. It was fine to an extent to think that this era is a digital-age. However, it saddens me, when I see that everywhere around everyone is so impressed with this digitalization that they feel there are only two answers to any question and you have to be on one of the sides. Everything under the sun is posed as a choice between just two options. Things are either black or white. There is no room for gray. There is either sunlight or moonlight. The beauty of the twilight is invisible.
Someone defines terrorism for you and you have to be either with him or with terrorists. If you doubt his definition, you are a deterrent in his anti-terrorism attacks and if you challenge the extremist ideology, you do not have the right to live in that society. The definer of terrorism will try his best to instigate the terrorism. He needs terrorism, otherwise who will support his definition. The immediate reaction to it is the surge of irrational radicalism. Now, if I want to be rational, the irrationals see me as an enemy and if I were to oppose the so-called anti-extremists, I become an extremist. I do not have any other option and neither the anti-terrorism camp nor the fundamentalist camp wants me to have any other option. I wonder if anyone envisaged that globalization would make even the self-centered diplomatic strategies more global.
You should either support or not support the reservations. If you take a stand that you support the reservation as a policy but not its current manifestation or if you feel that there should be a continuous review of this policy and it should be introduced with a time-line for discontinuation, then you are being too diplomatic. Your stand is also politically incorrect. Since this policy favors those who need a favor, no one would support it. Only the policies, which benefit classes are implemented and masses have no other option. And if you thought your stand was justified, no please, you were not inline with this digital world. Who gave you the option to think on your own and come up with a third option?
The digitalization has not even spared the most eminent of the society. I recently read an article on some news channel website that quoted President Kalam. It referred to one of his speeches in which he advocated the need for rapidly evolving into a stable “two-party” system. Though I do not know the context in which he said this, with due respect to his stature, I was completely shocked to read that. It not only reinforces my opinion that the person from socio-political background should hold the political post but also displays this unreasonable craze for boiling down to just two options. I have had few chances to speak with people of democratic or socialist ideology in US. Democrats did not fall short of any words to criticize republicans. Socialist were in real precarious situation. They were all in joy to see republicans lose a state after state. I asked them a simple question – I know you are anti-republicans, but you are not pro-democrats. So whom do you vote for? They said – we sometimes support independent candidates, we support the people who support democratic candidate, but we generally abstain from voting. The most crucial right in a democracy that of voting is not used because the person does not have a third option. I am talking about a nation with more than two hundred years of democratic establishment and proud of its democratic institution. Just look around the nations with two-party systems. Just see how much representation the traditionally oppressed sectors, minorities or women have in the government. It is a separate issue to discuss pros and cons of parliamentary or presidential democracy but we must cherish the multi-party system for it represents the essence of diverse societies in the best possible way. Now this digitalized, globalized world delineates the picture that progress equals political stability (which is fine to an extent) equals two-party system (sorry please) and even the eminent in the society tend to accept this equation without questioning it.
This happens every now and then. US secretary of state publicly says that NAM has no relevance now. India has to deny this statement. I appreciate the immediate and strong denial but I wonder if there is anything more than that in NAM. No one seems to want non-alliance. The examples may be political. But, that is because that is the worst hit sector of digitalization and most dangerous outcome of digitalization. Just think and you will realize how we want to trivialize every other issue to two diametrically opposite viewpoints. We forget that a diameter has no meaning without a circle. It is just a line otherwise. And we need infinite points to define a circle.
I keep thinking about this digitalization. I wonder that some day I would hear Ms. Sagarika Ghose posing a question on Face the Nation: Is Digitalization irreversible? Yes or No. I would again stumble to find a digital answer to it and before I would think of any other alternative, the verdict would be out. I will simply keep comparing the high pitch of her voice to the pitch (and no way melody) of Kavita Krishnamoorthy and failing to find a convincing answer even to that, start reading a book on “Digital” Signal Processing.
Let me explain, what is digital, for those, to whom its meaning is not so obvious. The entire digital revolution has its basis in the use of binary number system. It has only two numerals 0, 1 or in general, it represents everything under the sun using only two basic states as the decimal system would use ten states from 0 to 9. Fortunately, the nature does not restrict itself to such constraints. It manifests itself in the form of a continuum, which comprises of every possible state. Therefore, the whole attempt is to describe things, in the best possible manner, using some combination of two states. Now, I know it works nicely for machines but I have my reservations when it comes to humans. It was fine to an extent to think that this era is a digital-age. However, it saddens me, when I see that everywhere around everyone is so impressed with this digitalization that they feel there are only two answers to any question and you have to be on one of the sides. Everything under the sun is posed as a choice between just two options. Things are either black or white. There is no room for gray. There is either sunlight or moonlight. The beauty of the twilight is invisible.
Someone defines terrorism for you and you have to be either with him or with terrorists. If you doubt his definition, you are a deterrent in his anti-terrorism attacks and if you challenge the extremist ideology, you do not have the right to live in that society. The definer of terrorism will try his best to instigate the terrorism. He needs terrorism, otherwise who will support his definition. The immediate reaction to it is the surge of irrational radicalism. Now, if I want to be rational, the irrationals see me as an enemy and if I were to oppose the so-called anti-extremists, I become an extremist. I do not have any other option and neither the anti-terrorism camp nor the fundamentalist camp wants me to have any other option. I wonder if anyone envisaged that globalization would make even the self-centered diplomatic strategies more global.
You should either support or not support the reservations. If you take a stand that you support the reservation as a policy but not its current manifestation or if you feel that there should be a continuous review of this policy and it should be introduced with a time-line for discontinuation, then you are being too diplomatic. Your stand is also politically incorrect. Since this policy favors those who need a favor, no one would support it. Only the policies, which benefit classes are implemented and masses have no other option. And if you thought your stand was justified, no please, you were not inline with this digital world. Who gave you the option to think on your own and come up with a third option?
The digitalization has not even spared the most eminent of the society. I recently read an article on some news channel website that quoted President Kalam. It referred to one of his speeches in which he advocated the need for rapidly evolving into a stable “two-party” system. Though I do not know the context in which he said this, with due respect to his stature, I was completely shocked to read that. It not only reinforces my opinion that the person from socio-political background should hold the political post but also displays this unreasonable craze for boiling down to just two options. I have had few chances to speak with people of democratic or socialist ideology in US. Democrats did not fall short of any words to criticize republicans. Socialist were in real precarious situation. They were all in joy to see republicans lose a state after state. I asked them a simple question – I know you are anti-republicans, but you are not pro-democrats. So whom do you vote for? They said – we sometimes support independent candidates, we support the people who support democratic candidate, but we generally abstain from voting. The most crucial right in a democracy that of voting is not used because the person does not have a third option. I am talking about a nation with more than two hundred years of democratic establishment and proud of its democratic institution. Just look around the nations with two-party systems. Just see how much representation the traditionally oppressed sectors, minorities or women have in the government. It is a separate issue to discuss pros and cons of parliamentary or presidential democracy but we must cherish the multi-party system for it represents the essence of diverse societies in the best possible way. Now this digitalized, globalized world delineates the picture that progress equals political stability (which is fine to an extent) equals two-party system (sorry please) and even the eminent in the society tend to accept this equation without questioning it.
This happens every now and then. US secretary of state publicly says that NAM has no relevance now. India has to deny this statement. I appreciate the immediate and strong denial but I wonder if there is anything more than that in NAM. No one seems to want non-alliance. The examples may be political. But, that is because that is the worst hit sector of digitalization and most dangerous outcome of digitalization. Just think and you will realize how we want to trivialize every other issue to two diametrically opposite viewpoints. We forget that a diameter has no meaning without a circle. It is just a line otherwise. And we need infinite points to define a circle.
I keep thinking about this digitalization. I wonder that some day I would hear Ms. Sagarika Ghose posing a question on Face the Nation: Is Digitalization irreversible? Yes or No. I would again stumble to find a digital answer to it and before I would think of any other alternative, the verdict would be out. I will simply keep comparing the high pitch of her voice to the pitch (and no way melody) of Kavita Krishnamoorthy and failing to find a convincing answer even to that, start reading a book on “Digital” Signal Processing.
Oops! Have to read it once again to give any comment with enough responsibility!
ReplyDeleteNice post Sane, I understand this better than the ones below. I completely agree to what you say, I think everybody now thinks in black or white. We shud realise that in reality world is grayscale. Read a very good illustration of that in Steve Wozniak (maker of Apple) autobiography and how one should get away from this two color world. Read it :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks Kulu. I have not read this book but will try to get hold of it.
ReplyDeleteNice thoughts...although I believe its more because of media hype and the way media influences our thinking today...nevertheless, loved the line "We forget that a diameter has no meaning without a circle. It is just a line otherwise. And we need infinite points to define a circle" ...but try to limit the length next time.
ReplyDeletei agree with ur opinions...the digitalization has indeed become a part of life..like bringing it down to just 2 options..:)
ReplyDeleteHey Sane....as usual an excellent piece of writing by you. I definitely agree to your thoughts about digitalization as applied to humans but on a generic basis. However, don't you think so that, sometimes on a personal basis digitalization can be beneficial!?!?
ReplyDeleteI think what you are referring to is ultimate decision making. When you want to take a decision, you would have multiple options and then you would (rather should) think and take a decision. As a part of that, ultimately you will choose between two after eliminating others. I dont think that is what I am referring to. What I am referring to is that, we start with trivializing the issue to two options and then think we want to be here or there. We should on the contrary first think of possible options and "their combinations" and not start out with just two poles. And I feel even on the personal level, you should be doing that and a last but one step would have 2 decisions out of which you will choose one. So I think you would have digitalization at the last step. And I feel this is how it should be...what say??
ReplyDeletevery true...I think thats a good stand too...true...!! Digitalization should be there at last step only ...and I think a person should be initially aware that, the ultimate aim of the elimination of options is digitalization...then he or she is on the right track!! :)
ReplyDelete