Alone in the universe

At the end of the day, every man is an island unto himself. Even as we are surrounded by family, strangers, friends, enemies, whoever, there is no one who ever truly understands another entirely. Which is what drove Agastya Sen to his peculiar state of mind in that classic book, English, August (recommended to those of you who haven't already read it). Anyway, wrong road to go down on, since this post is about something quite different.

A couple of weeks ago, thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope, scientists spotted a planet, called HD 189733b, 63 light years away which has carbon dioxide and water vapour in its atmosphere. These are both among organic compounds referred to as chemical biotracers of life, and scientists are really excited at this discovery, since it means a big step in the the process of trying to find extraterrestrial life.

I have to say, I find it quite fascinating, the methods these scientists use to arrive at conclusions about the existence of one particle of carbon dioxide among a million random particles 63 light years away. It shows that some of us are actually pretty smart, and that even with our limited means of observation, we can still make some fantastic conclusions. So far, so good.

Oh, on a similar note, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has also found carbonates, evidence for a water environment capable of supporting life on the red planet. And the scientists say that there are increased possibilities, as a consequence of this find, that life did start on Mars at some point.

Of course, if they manage to prove the existence of life anywhere else in the universe at any point of time, it will be a welcome slap in the face for most religions that advocate man as the favourite creation of god, given the earth to plunder as he liked. But there is another aspect of this issue, a scientific one, that bothers me slightly.

While I totally laud the work done by these astronomers and the associated scientific faculty to find evidence of extra-terrestrial life, I can't help but criticise the assumption that these same people make about organic life being the only possible life form. I know its a start, and a sensible one at that, given our own limitations not just of observation, but even of thought. But all the same, I somehow expect the scientific community to rise beyond its own philosophical limitations. May be it is too much to ask for.

In the meanwhile, here's to anal-probing aliens!

A little joy, and the usual sack of complaints

The reason for this small joy, believe it or not, has to do with Facebook! I never had thought I would one day say I am actually happy at some development to do with one of these social networking websites, but I stand humbled.

A Gordon Poyser and Carmel Corbo of Canberra were served a foreclosure notice for their home by their mortgage lender through - you guessed it - Facebook. And the Aussie court in question was nice and wise enough to uphold the method used as valid. If you want to read the details, go here:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AUSTRALIA_FACEBOOK?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Its hard to express how much I enjoyed reading it. Especially the bit in the article where someone says people don't join Facebook thinking of it as another means through which the government or debt collectors can contact them. Or the bit where someone else raises the question of how Facebook users envision the site being used. Take those two and contrast that with the website's spokesperson comments, who says the company is pleased. Hahahahaha! Fucking brilliant, if you ask me. Served those Facebook suckers right to be served on Facebook. Oh, I do hope that many thousands and millions such cases happen soon, and such "social" spaces start including aspects of society other than socialising.

And yes, any of you who want to charge me with indulging in schadenfreude, please, by all means, be my guest!

As for the complaints, I am still stuck on Pakistan, our errant sibling. Well, actually, I am also feeling considerable ire towards Arundhati Roy in a related matter, but that deserves a post to itself. Talking of Pakistan, it makes me wonder what its people think of its actions or words, given the awe-inspiring inconsistencies in the nature of those actions or words.

So first a 'defence analyst' called Zaid Hamid blames an international conspiracy, which includes "Western Zionists, Israeli Zionists and Hindu Zionists" (go figure), for the recent terrorist strike in Bombay, adding helpfully also that Indians were too incompetent to pull it off, messed up the whole operation and hence the dead 'terrorists' etc. Now a lawyer called CM Farooque claims that the lone arrested terrorist was actually picked up in Nepal by Indian agencies with the help of Nepali forces in 2006, along with about 200 other Pakistanis on business trips to Nepal, for the specific purpose of being implicated in such Mumbai-like incidents. Yes, we are suddenly a lot more capable than Mr Defence Analyst would like. But this lawyer, I really need to know where the hashish he is smoking comes from.

Pakistan claims that 2 fighter jets of the Indian Air Force violated its air space last week. Then their President Mr Zardari and a spokesman for their Air Force, both say a day later that it was a "technical incursion" which was "made by mistake". India denies any such thing ever happened. Pakistan sticks to its guns. Now, Pakistan has lodged a formal protest with India about the matter, and is seeking an explanation. An explanation about something that you have yourself already described as a mistake and a technicality? Come on, don't you have more important things to do?!

Also last week, Pakistan's defence minister said during a TV interview that Maulana Masood Azhar (a terrorist who was released from an Indian jail in exchange for a plane-full of hostages) had been placed under house arrest but would not be handed over to India. And today, their high commissioner to India, Shahid Malik, says that he is not just not under house arrest, but is in fact not even in Pakistan. You don't know for sure where one person is, and you say you don't need help taking down terrorist camps?

Ah, the list goes on. There are many aspects I haven't even touched upon, such as the comments made by Mr Zardari, and how they stand compared to other officials from his country, or the various reports in various media outlets, and of course, the official endorsement or rejection of them, as per convenience, and the all important distinction between voiced intentions and actual actions. Its true that contradictions of such nature exist everywhere in the world. But to indulge in them so blatantly when the spotlight of the world is shining bright in your face, that takes something. Either big balls of titanium, or a big dose of blind stupidity. But then again, putting on two faces simultaneously has always come easy to Pakistan.

Antisociality

Every now and then, I am affected by a largely inexplicable bout of the desire to be antisocial, or rather, to not be social. Given my usual gregarious nature, it takes me by somewhat of a surprise and I am compelled to search for a plausible reason for my behaviour that seems unusual to my self.

Tonight, for instance, my office is hosting its annual Christmas party at Pacha, a posh club that I wouldn't otherwise think about going to, on account of the ethereal priciness. This being an office party, free alcohol will flow freely all night. All I have to do is show up, head to the bar and drink my fill. But the more I think about getting out of bed, taking a shower or even just brushing my hair or whatever else, to look at least somewhat 'presentable', the more I think about why I should do it.

My office is not the worst place I have been in, and the people there are not bad per se. But that doesn't mean they are enchanting company. The few who I have managed to engage in a conversation that is not about work, well, it is usually only a matter of time when they go white or red in the face at something I would say, and then remember some urgent piece of work that needs immediate attention. Or they would laugh, merely to hide their acute discomfort at some opinion I voiced, and they would throw in a few muttered words, something like "wow, isn't that harsh?" or "we will agree to disagree." The few times I have been drinking with office folks, the conversation (usually depending on who is talking) ventures in the never-tired direction of office gossip, bitching about bosses and colleagues, etc OR in to these gaps of awkward silences that follow right after something I said, which in turn will be broken by an "OOOOOOKAAAAAY" and then some random chatter in the aforementioned direction.

So, why then should I go for this thing tonight? Is free alcohol reason enough? When I was a 'poor' college student (sometimes I truly wonder how I got by those days...), I would probably show up for anything that associated with the word 'free'. Well, not anything... but all the same, I did do a few random things for freebies. When I was interning with a newspaper, I would volunteer to cover press conferences even if it meant a couple of hours of travel. While other interns clamoured to get stories published with their by-lines, I was piling my plate with the free food at the end of the conference. If I got a by-line, well, that was a bonus.

So anyway, I can buy my food now, all I can eat and even some to waste if I like. Same goes for alcohol. The word 'free' in general has lost its importance, when pitted against the hassle involved in obtaining whatever the freebie is. The hassle could be physical, mental, whatever, its just not worth it.

There are two other social engagements I could involve myself in tonight, and both of those are with friends. But I am quite disinclined to do that as well. My reasoning? If I have to meet my friends, eventually to get drunk, I might as well do that without spending any money at my office party. Talk about contradictions!

So this is what I figured... the combination of doing the same things with the same people is what is putting me off doing those things with those people, even if I in fact don't mind either indulging in those things or the company of those people. (There is ONE exception to that rule, a very special case, involving carnal pleasures with one specific girl that I will never tire of.) Much as I don't like long periods of 'alone-time', I had rather be by myself tonight. Suddenly, household chores seem so much more appealing! Or maybe I will write some more...

Bomb-ay Bomb-ay

Compared to other recent terrorist activities in India, the latest carnage in Mumbai is different in at least two striking ways. One, the audacious methodology used. Two, the targets' profile. But I am not about to spend time analysing either, since anyone who is interested probably already knows at least as much as I do. One way or the other, this has become quite a hot potato, one that's sure to burn a few fingers, and mouths too.

On India's part, it is not so much an intelligence failure as is being made out. Enough warning bells seem to have been rung, mostly ignored by the administration. Some figurative heads have already rolled, and who knows what price the electorate will extract, come election time (for once, the middle classes may have actually been jolted enough to care to use their vote properly). But once we are done blaming and maiming those who were meant to be responsible for the prevention of such incidents, two things are needed. One, ensuring a better prevention mechanism. Two, bringing the perpetrators to book.

Countries like the USA and UK have enacted strict laws in recent times to counter the threat of terror, and that has resulted in the curtailing of civil liberties. In recent discussions in Indian media, I heard many ordinary citizens saying they don't mind giving up some rights if it does indeed ensure their safety at large. Personally though, the idea makes me a bit uncomfortable. I mean, one of the things I hate about London is the ever-present CCTVs, just like I hate having to take off my shoes, etc at Heathrow. But I will try keep personal opinions on living in an Orwellian state out of this for the moment.

The USA and UK don't share borders with traditionally hostile countries. The US border with Mexico, despite the former's best efforts, is still porous enough for large amounts of drugs and immigrants from the latter to cross over illegally every year. The drugs come for consumption (and as long as they are of good quality, really, no one should complain) and the immigrants come for work. Whether legal or not, they are doing little harm (yes, drugs can harm if used irresponsibly, but that's the user's fault, not the drug's). Now, if Pakistan was sending quality drugs in to India, boy oh boy, would it make for a sweeter planet! Manpower... hmm... we already have too many people, but yea, sure, we always have had a reputation of being accommodating. Instead, we have had three full blown wars, one smaller one, and more than two decades of a proxy-war in the name of Kashmir's liberation.

If you target the bases where terror perpetrators operate from, don't you prevent terror activities by default? If Pakistan is serious about fighting terror, and actually feels victimised by terrorism as it claims to, why does it constantly refuse to clean up its act? In between its government, ISI, army and Islamists, it has yet to make a single real noteworthy step towards showing its commitment to the cause. And this is not about the recent Mumbai attacks alone, even if India has enough evidence to implicate Pakistani complicity in the affair.

What about Lashkar-e-Taiba which has been banned for being a terrorist organisation? Why are its operatives still roaming free within Pakistan? Why is the US using drones to attack positions inside Pakistan's boundaries? What about the evidence showing ISI's involvement in the blast at the Indian embassy in Kabul? I could go on, but the point is, if there are so many accusations against Pakistan, maybe the country's administration should stop saying that the world is conspiring against it. The world has other priorities, you know. If it weren't for George Bush, it would be a far more isolated country today.

Argh! This post has gone a bit all over the place. There is so much to say... bits in Pakistani media that are positively insane, some Indian politicians who deserve lynching... screw it. I will just say this... I can't wait to see India's response, and I hope that for a change, its not a soft one. After all, its fashionable to use 'change' and 'Obama' in the same sentence, and he did say that India has the "right to protect" itself.