01. A digression to another kind of sieving

02. How systems and individuals rot

In my writings, do I necessarily denigrate the ‘Indians’? Well, it might seem so, from a very superficial view. Yet, far below this cursory understanding, a person should discern the exact concern for arguing for quality improvement in the native people who abound in the geographical area which was once called British-India, and currently consisting of Pakistan, Indian and Bangladesh. If these people can remove themselves from the stinking-dirtifying hold of their traditional suppressors, who tell them lies, and get to learn pristine English, a very liberated populace shall come into being here. It shall not be like the people of US, who are not on the pathway of refined liberation, but of absolute disarraying of human qualities. [NOTE: Current day English in India is not pristine English, but simply feudal vernacular-English : Read my Online Writings Vol 1 or 2]

For, the people of US are slowly changing into a populace that has to continually react to feudal language codes, as these codes come rushing into the very interiors of an English-speaking nation. The people would struggle to shove off the strangling grip of feudal language codes that come to haunt not only them, but even their policymaking process.

The people of any nation anywhere shall improve if they are given English training by England. And this trainer-England should consist of the original native-English speakers. Not the others who masquerade as Englishmen and women. Or at least persons who know the issues and are fully committed to perfect English and English antiquity.

Can anyone do this in current-day India? Well, there is this comment that came on SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in its Ramanujan page, attacking me:

Neeraj 03:45 PM 12/23/12

But even if one were to accept your false linguistic analysis as to be true, then what is to say that India would not have moved on or gotten rid of this practice or such practices from self-cleansing ? What is to say it would not have produced men and women who would have brought about a revolution ?

MY COMMENT: Well, I know persons who can bring about this revolution. However this revolution has nothing to do with guns and bombs or with calls for non-violent agitation, fasting and drinking honey and orange juice is over, blackmailing the nation with civic blockades and burning up the commodities of poor traders and such things. The revolution that has to be spurred up is the removal of a communication code that makes a major section of the people live and feel like abominable matter, while a few has the feel and looks of gold.

This revolution can be motivated by persons who have special kind of quality. There are different kinds of quality. For example, I am know a lot of Malayalam old film songs, Indian puranas, Greek fairy tales, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, World History, Indian history, Colonial history, have read many Malayalam books, Islamic themes including much about Prophet Muhammad, Biblical themes including those in Old Testament as well as New Testament; have rudimentary information about Astrology, Vedic Mantras, Buddhism etc. I have proficiency in various computer related work and equipments, including software applications like Adobe Acrobat and many other Adobe software as well as others. I know the geography of my home state quite well, and have lived in various parts of India.

I have interacted with the government departments at various levels, and hence have acquired a more than average idea above statutory rules and how they get drafted. I know swimming and have gone for many adventures trips. I have driven two-wheelers, four-wheelers as well as six-wheelers. I used to climb up huge coconut trees when I was young. I can write with good proficiency and readability, with a typing-speed of 60 words per minute. I have trained many persons to speak good English. And I know a lot of businesses. Beyond all this, I have read and seen pornography also.

Now many of these things, I am sure many other persons are quite proficient and possibly more proficient. I mention all this with no sense of competition. For, I do not want to compete and win against anyone. What I want to mention here is that there is one more thing that I have acquired that I value much, actually much beyond all this. In this also, there is no sense of competition. For I am sure that there are an immensity of persons who can possible be much better than me in experience and capacity.

This particular aspect of mine is the fact that I used to read English Classics at a very young age. Names such as R L Stevenson, Sir Walter Scott, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Baroness Orczy, Jack London, Conon Doyle, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling, G B Shaw, A J Cronin, Somerset Maugham and many others I used to read in my kid days.

Now, this is an achievement that I am really proud of. I saw through these writings another world that was quite apart and different from the world that I was in. I could discern in the most tragic stories of England, a very un-conceding human dignity, that was not possible in a Malayalam or any other Indian languages ambience. Which I could only imagine, but never get to experience.

In my school and college days, I did not know anyone who was into English classics. In fact, when I was in my degree class, the standard statement of the students were, ‘The —Newspaper is too tough. I can’t understand anything. But ———— is much easier to understand’.

I used to take English classics from the Public Library. When I go through the book loaning list in the back page of the books, I would find that they were all being very busily taken by many other persons. In fact, there was a huge demand for British Classics. Yet, I never to come into direct contact with any one of these readers.

Later in life, I have come across persons who were avid readers of British Classics. None of them were my friends. Yet, they all had a definite difference from the rest of the crowd. However, it would not be correct to say that they were morally better than the others or that they were better people than the rest. They were different, with a refinement of a different kind.

A digression to another kind of sieving

It is here that I need to insert another thought of mine. Nowadays there are a lot of competitive exams, meant to sieve out persons for public service employments. What is it that these exams are trying to check, measure or evaluate in the candidates?

I do remember in the old times, exams, quizzes and such things, at least from the good English background, having a specific aim of sieving out specific type of persons. For example, if officers of the IAS were to be selected, there was a very specific idea about the mental standards of the persons who need to be selected. The exams were not meant to just create a bland ranking of persons which mean nothing. It is not that only certain persons are of calibre, intelligence and capacity.

It has been my observation that IQ and intelligence is not confined to certain sections of persons. For example, one day there was a coconut tree to be cut down. It was standing quite near to the house, amidst a lot of other trees and structures. The tree cutting person was quite an expert in his job. He evaluated the complete scenario and did the cutting with super finesse. He went up the tree, tied a standing platform for him and cut down the tree piece above him, and made it fall exactly in the area that he wanted it to fall. I could discern intelligence, calibre as well as skill, apart from a lot of muscle power.

However, if this same man was asked about HCF, LCM and the other typical things that are fed to the school children, he would be a mere nitwit. It goes without saying that intelligence is not confined to school, books and marks.

From this premises, I need to enter into the domain of selecting persons for specific jobs. If one wants a guard, there are specific capacities that are to be sort for. For becoming a boxer, there are others. For becoming a lorry driver, he has to have certain capacities directly connected to his job. However, in the case of the bureaucrats, the Indian Public Service exams do not focus on any specific mental standard.

The idea has to be explained a bit more. It is like this: What is the type of persons that are required to be selected to be an IAS officer? Answer is connected to first formulating the kind of person who has to be placed on such high administrative pedestals. I can illustrate my idea thus:

Take ten persons of varying mental calibre and standards. One knows about Mathematics. One is an expert coconut farmer. Third has a cattle farm. Fourth is good in Physics. Another, in Chemistry. Another in Botany. Another in Malayalam literature. Another in English classics. Like that it goes.

Now among all of these persons, who is the kind of person that needs to be in charge of the nation? According to this, should the questions be framed. Instead of this, what is being done is to put up a lot of questions that is basically aimed at displaying the shallow pedantry of the question setters.

I must mention that when my mother was in service, she was once given a chance to set the question for a Sub Inspectors’ exam. The model that was sent to her was of an absolute nonsensical type. A lot of one-word answer questions which of the type: What is the highest mountain peak in the world? Where is the deepest place on earth? etc. What kind of evaluation of persons can these questions do?

Now coming back to the IAS questions, one can very easily select the type of persons from the ten persons according to what type the government wants as the high officials of the nation.

If a question on coconut yield and plucking is asked, that man would be selected.

If a Chemistry question is asked, the Chemistry man would come out with flying colours.

If a question on Malayalam poetry is asked, the Malayalam scholar would come out.

If a question on English Classics is asked, the English classics fan would come out.

Who among these persons the nation wants as its high officials have to be decided by the nation.

It may be mentioned here that among all these persons, a very definite difference would be discernible in the English Classics fan. For, he is a person who is totally in a different world, of an egalitarian-language adoration.

If I were to select a person to adorn the highest office of the nation, I would ask a question that would bring out the English Classics reader to the fore. That was what the English administration also did in British-India. However, with the formation of India, the question setters have lost sight of this aim. Now the exam is just a scrabble to take up whoever comes up first in a mad race to the top. Any man or woman can be the top official of the nation, with scant connection to egalitarian social concepts.

Actually, for me to sieve out a person of extremely elegant English information, all I need to ask is a few questions. A simple question like: What is the statement ‘Barkis is willing’ connected to, can at most times, give me a hint of a person’s reading skills in English Classics.

However, other questions pertaining to such phrases as ‘Pieces of eight’, ‘Drink and the Devil had done for the rest’, ‘Children of the Mist’, ‘Alan Breck Stewart, ‘Maugham’, ‘Oliver Twist asks for more’, ‘“Swallow, Swallow, little Swallow, will you not stay with me for one night, and be my messenger?’, can powerfully direct me to the person who has elegant English reading qualities that I do desire.

Beyond that information on such words as The Seven Dwarfs, Little Red Riding Hood, Piggy on the Railway, Four and twenty black birds might help me refine the search.

Yet, such question as: Who is the first prime minister of India, Who is the father of our nation, Who is considered as the father of the Malayalam language, Which commission was concerned with the river water dispute among the states and such would never direct me to these people. In fact, they would direct no one to any section of people, other than an unintelligent array of people who have mugged up a lot of information from sterile exam guides.

Well, it is my contention that the officialdom of the nation that occupies the areas of erstwhile British-India should be manned by persons of the former group. However, current-day Indian officialdom is manned by persons of the latter group. In quality, behaviour, politeness to the common man, in intelligence, honesty, rectitude, attitude of public service and attention to detail, the current-day bureaucrat displays the innate qualities of this group. Rank cantankerous and arrogant lot.

How systems and individuals rot

When I have to speak about British-Indian officials, I need to speak about my mother. She was only 23 years old when she joined as a Sub Registrar in the Madras Public Service. The time was just a few years after the departure of the British. Malabar was a part of the Madras state. All systems were then simply a continuation of the British systems.

The officer class spoke English. There was no talk about taking a bribe. In fact, it was seen as equivalent to pick pocketing. The mental spur was in seeing things done fast and very fast. The public were to meet the officer who would immediately hand it over to the clerk to have it done fast. There was no need for the common man to linger around a clerk.

No bribes were expected and none collected. However, among the lower sections like the clerks and peons, who spoke Malayalam, the feudal attitude of pejoratives and expecting of homage was very much there.

There was one marked thing that I remember. When the land registration documents were written, it was customary to address the lower caste man as Nee and the higher caste man as Ningal (both meaning You, with the former, pejorative and the latter ennobling). I remember my mother directing the document writer to remove that discrimination in the addressing in the written document. This was mentioned to me by my mother.

I have had the occasion to meet many of her colleagues in my younger days. There was never a word among them of collecting bribes. In fact, the first time it was mentioned in my house, when I was just around three years old. A clerk from Travancore area had been posted in the interior village Sub Registrar’s office when my mother was the Sub Registrar. The clerk was quite concerned that there was no culture of collecting bribes in this office. And no access to the public also.

He went around complaining to the document writers, who mentioned this fact to my mother. This piece of information was discussed in my house, with a mood of discussing some dirty thing. In fact, looking back, the attitude was as if one were discussing a person who was into something quite despicable. I think there was more dignity to a prostitute than to a government official who collected bribes or expected them.

I remember a marked change in demeanour as Malabar-based officers got transferred to Travancore. Here the culture was totally different, with claims for bribes a matter of right. However, it must be admitted that both Travancore as well as Malabar had feudal languages. Yet, the codes were different, and affect the people differently.

When speaking about my mother, I must admit that she was, as a private person, quite cunning, divisive, self-centred, selfish, conspiring and in many ways a person of grave negativity. Especially her Malayalam-speaking side. However, as a public official, she was above all these qualities. I should claim that this was due to some inherent qualities in her genes and family background. But it would be a false claim. What I understood about her and many of her colleagues, was that they were setup into an English official system, in which they could not behave in any other manner other than be fast, efficient and prompt.

At the same time, I have come across persons, who are basically good and helpful, acting out as quite cantankerous officials as they react to their own official environment and to the public. Indian officialdom is a satanic institution because it is run on satanic codes. The same design codes that design pseudo-divinities like Gandhi set the tone to it. Divinities on top, and the common persons made to sit in dirt.

The falsity of the situation can be mentioned thus:

Three different persons go to an Indian police station. The first is a relative of a senior Indian government officer. The second is a school teacher. The third is an ordinary worker on the street.

Look at the way the policeman would address the three persons.

To the first: Saarinentha paraathi? [Blue]

To the second: Ningalkku yentha paraathi? [Neutral]

To the third: Ninakenthada paraathi? [Red]

The word in blue is ennobling, respectful and worshipping.

The middle one is neutral.

The word in red is pejorative, insulting, despoiling and also stinking-dirtifying.

Yet, the effect of these three words is not as one would expect in English. The first makes the man assertive to the policeman. The second makes him arrive at a reasonably good stature. The third makes the worker respectful, worshipping, full of servitudes and praise for the policeman. If this doesn’t work, the man simply reacts differently and can in time, become a terrorist.

Yet, all the sentences simply mean: What is your complaint?

How can a native-English speaker sitting in England understand the real satanic codes in this Indian communication? For all he gets to know is, What is your complaint?

How can he understand the Satan that Gandhi was without understanding the devil in him that speaks Hindi to the lower Indians? Simply seeing a make-belief film on Gandhi that was for all purpose a propaganda film for the ruling party in India, a huge section of people all around the world have been fooled.

SEE this sneering comment that came to attack my comment on HuffingtonPost:

honeybear July 14, 2012 at 12:40am

QUOTE: Wikipedia is not the beginning and end of my education. I usually cite my facts so that others here may confirm them. You DID notice that I also referred them to the bibliography at the bottom of the article for more reading.

I have studied Gandhi and followed Indira Gandhi’s career to her horrible assassination....and Nehru as well. My opinions and perceptions differ greatly from yours.

No matter how much you have read about Gandhi...your mindset seems to be preventing you from perceiving him. If my “feeble” understanding of the “feudal” language...is that the Brits enjoyed kicking the sh*t out of minorities and lower classes...while trying to maintain a superior attitude...while THEY were the most violent people on the face of the earth...well yes...I do not speak fah...fah...fah...fah...fah!

Americans do tend to use colorful language. Sorry if I did not curtsy. END OF QUOTE

MY COMMENT: One can see the real spirit of Gandhism in the above words. Talking without information and the brutal stance of jeering and sneering as a serviceable substitute to logical discussion. All what newly-arrived ‘Americans’ are doing to English language.

I really do wonder how this Gandhi would have mentioned the Englishmen in his native Hindi and Gujarthi. Would he have used ‘respectful’ words about the Englishmen he knew in India and England? Or would he have coyly used the stinking-dirtifying words about and on them? He, who wouldn’t care a damn about stinking-dirtifying his own native countrymen, would he have cared to secure the Englishmen from his despoiling words? Did the Englishmen have an answer to his diabolical codes?

Well, they never had this weapon; that of stinking-dirtifying others. At the same time, when Gandhi dares to use such words about the Englishmen, his followers would see in him greater power. For, it is how the codes work in feudal languages. Without having even a hint of this feature of Gandhi’s innate disposition, how can a person dare to make tall claims about him? For all such evaluations are based on hollow premises.