Of Men and Politics

Here is a joke I once heard from a friend

Mr. & Mrs. Sharma celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Friends compliment them on how happy their marriage has been. Mrs. Sharma says
"The secret of our happy marriage is that the woman makes the small decisions, while the man makes the big decisions. For example, I decide the vacations we take and the children's school"

Someone says, "What about the car you drive?" - "Small decision"

"Finance and saving?" - "Small decision"

"House you live?" - "Small decision"

"What then are the big decisions?" - "Who should be Prime Minister; Is George Bush right; Should India sign the nuclear deal"

The joke captures the essence of what I'm going to say. As a kid growing up in India, I remember that in parties, men and women would often separate. The men, would talk about politics, while the women talked about the more everyday things like kids, friends or the vegetable market.

As I got older, many men would try to educate me about the facts of life - Congress misrule for 40 years, how India could have done better if Nehru had been more aggressive on Kashmir and how politicians are ruining the country. I guess I have to mention my grandfather's pet theory on how politicians continue to keep people uneducated and make them reproduce rapidly so that they can get more votes. If only India would make education necessary to be eligible to vote, we can get rid of the "rogues" (current set of corrupt politicians).

With time, I learnt that men with strong political views often never thought things through. Going to college and living in a hostel exposed me to a range of political views. And since we often talked about these things to friends and wing-mates, I learnt how to argue my case out, whatever it might be. It didn't take much probing to tell that men and their strong political opinions were heavily biased or flawed and often said things which had very little basis if at all.

Of course, the men themselves were nice people. It was quite time later before I realized that political opinions were disconnected from the rest of their personality. It seemed strange why a genuinely nice person would have such intense hatred for Muslims, people he has no knowledge about. I also noticed that older people had stronger opinions. The younger men, people in their twenties, usually did not say much and politely listened while the others ranted.

I noticed that women would never enter any of these discussions. One particular "mama" ("uncle") was telling me why India should launch a full scale war against Pakistan. At some point, I felt, "This mama is too extreme. I need another opinion to counter it". When the mami passed by, I looked to her and was hoping she would give her opinion. Surely she couldn't be living with a man who wanted to bomb Pakistan and be quiet about it. She politely asked me about how I was doing, my studies and all, and then left me to the mama after that.

Now, the question is, is there a point to an argument? I guess one is duty bound to defend oneself and one's kind, and needs to educate the lesser enlightened. On several occasions, I've had to tell people in Bangalore that North Indians (in the South, UP doesn't sound very different from Punjab, and so I might as well say all North Indians) are nice and hospitable people, even though the worst politicians and goondas come from there. Many of these discussions have a positive effect and people either rethink their views or maybe just don't say it in my presence. It was through such arguments that I learnt many things, such as how people's lives depend on subsidies - while there may be lots of corruption and misuse, one simply can't eliminate them.

Okay. Then when is an argument pointless? When neither party learns anything new. I've spent many hours trying to show holes in flawed logic and explain that Pakistan consists of people for the most part. A complete waste of time. I take that back. I've learnt something new - never to do it again. Women knew this all along. Makes me feel stupid. Anyway, my policy now is to disagree but not argue. This is quite hard to do, particularly when the other person has a fiery speech ready to be delivered. Despite my staunch resolution not to waste time arguing, one my roommates at College Park got me arguing about why Israel doesn't control the world. This brings me to another point. An argument is even more pointless if its outcome will not change anything. Even if learn that Israel is manipulating Egyptian policy, it doesn't change anything. I'm a powerless individual, who is most likely not to campaign to change Israel's foreign policy. Even if went all out to change something, I probably wouldn't make much of a difference. In that light, one might as well let men have their say on how India should treat Pakistan. Save the argument for how easy it is to use the Internet.

Life in the US has been different, with regards to talking politics. Barring that one roommate, most people my age don't argue about politics. Young couples prefer talking about the more everyday things like work, houses, vacations or kids. Americans do not talk to politics to people they do not know well. Rants, if any, in a group of physicists, are highly leftist and much to my liking. A welcome relief! The occasional time I've visited older Indians (those with grown up kids) in the US, I've chosen the ladies' conversation table.

I had almost forgotten about pointless political arguments. However, recently, on an IITK alumni mailing list, I've noticed that a few people have begun to rant about the so called "Secular India" - how Christians are mass converting Hindus and how Hinduism is dying out. When I voiced my dissent, I was pointedly challenged by one particular person, Mr.X. Since he seemed rational, I wrote a lengthy email educating him about certain things about the South he never knew. To my credit, some other people appreciated my email, and with a halo on my head, I felt that I had done some good. Much to my dismay, it looks like Mr.X's political views haven't changed at all and he has conveniently forgotten the things I said. Also, he isn't the only one and there are a couple others like him, some of them terribly illogical. On further scrutiny, I noticed that these people seem to be my age to a few years older to me. That's when it dawned on me. The next generation of crazy theory politic speaking men is born!

I've sworn to myself. When I get old, I will keep my political views to myself. Even if I have the magic formula to make India a great place, I would do better by working for an NGO or giving to charity.

The People I meet

Key -
Blue - ubiquitous
Reddish Brown - roommates
Lilac - University of Maryland
Green - NIST & Research connections
Light Brown - Random encounters

Living in Washington DC has opened me to a wide variety of people, particularly with respect to national origin. I've always been curious as to where people come from, and often have shamelessly asked people I've just met (Ice cream vendor or taxi driver or metro co-passenger), where they come from. Surprisingly, most people are happy to tell me that and many have told me how life is back in their country.

I've also been fascinated by maps. It felt nice to put all the kinds of people I've met into a colourful map.

Some observations

- I've had roommates from every continent in the world.

- I realize that being in Washington DC, being associated with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and being associated with UMD (University or Marlyand) all contribute to the diversity of the people I meet.

- Americans, Chinese, Indians, South Koreans, Russians and Mexicans (Filipinos and Brits to a lesser extent) seem everywhere.

- Broadly, I tend to meet people from developed countries through NIST (and research connections), people from developing countries through UMD, and people from other countries through random meetings.

- Amongst the most rare and exotic countries, I've met people from Togo (pop. 6.3 million), Nicaragua (pop. 5.8 million), Finland (pop. 5.2 million), Eritrea (pop. 5.5 million), New Zealand (pop. 4.3 million), Lebanon (pop. 4 million), Mongolia (pop. 2.6 million), Botswana (pop. 1.9 million).

- I've met many people from El Salvador (pop 7 million), a small country in Latin America. El Salvador had a brutal civil war (1980-1992), which may explain how there are so many immigrants here. There are so many Salvadoreans in the Wash DC metro area that there are even Salvadorean gangs (MS-13). Most of the Spanish speaking people I encounter are Salvadoreans.

- I've met a lot of Ethiopians. They speak Amhari. Sometimes, asking someone what language they are speaking (to either their family or colleague) is a better way of asking what country they come from.

- Given that I've personally met people from so many countries, I think that there are people from almost every single country here in Washington DC.

- I've met many African-Americans (so called "Blacks" or people of African origin who have lived in the US since colonial times). The African-American community is quite distinct from the rest of America and I would have liked if I could assign them another place on the map. While many people I've met don't distinguish African-Americans from Africans (I'm referring to people who've recently come from Africa), I think there is a world of difference, from appearance to accent to community. Africans come much closer to other immigrants. They have their tiny communities and look upon the US as opportunity and livelihood. African-Americans have a long history here, and form a large community amongst themselves.

- I've not met anyone who referred to him/her self as a Native American or Pacific Islander. However, according to a study in 2004, Puerto Ricans (US territory in the Carribbean) have 17.6% Native American ancestory proportion. Maybe that is the closest one can get to meeting a true American.