Thank You for Banning Books & Verses

Ref Esquith, one of the most famous middle-school teachers and my inspiration, once mentioned that he would ask the students in his classroom to read books that are/ were banned. He argued that banned books contained ideas that nobody wanted to listen to but needs to be heard.  

 

Photo by Elisa Calvet B. on Unsplash 

 

But banning a book often has the opposite effect. Just like asking one to not think about an elephant in rollerblades would inevitably lead to thinking about it. Similarly, banning the book piques the interest of the citizens to read the book.

 

Since then, I have been always been curious about banned books. If I heard about a book that was banned, my hand would be drawn toward the book. A couple of years ago, there were protests against Taslima Nasreen in India -- whose book, Lajja, was banned in Bangladesh. And when I read the book, it became obvious that the reason for banning was book was more to hide the ineptitude of the state rather than to hurt the religious sentiments of religion. 

 

In India, instead of banning books, the educational boards have been removing poems and stories from their syllabus by citing frivolous reasons. In 2019, the ICSE board removed Krishna Chander's Jamun Ka Ped from its syllabus. As usual, it piqued my interest and I immediately read the short story. The story can be found here (in Hindi). 

 

It is a short story that takes a satirical view of the lackadaisical attitude of the Indian bureaucracy. It is a story about a well-known poet who falls under a tree (Jamun ka ped) inside a government building. However, officials of different departments, instead of taking action, keep sending the file to different departments to seek clearance before finally reaching Prime Minister's office. 

 

There was no reason to remove the story unless it mirrored the reality in some way. Arun Shourie narrates a similar incident in one of his books on bureaucrat red-tapism. Once, a file is sent to the Administrative Reforms department whether signing a file with a black pen (since the prevalent practice was a blue pen) acceptable. The AR department sends the file to Archives Department to get historical records. The file is later sent to the Military to get their opinion. Finally, after 18 months of hopping around the different departments, they conclude that black pens are acceptable. It was Jamun Ka Ped all over again. 

In the last few weeks, the CBSE has decided to remove two poems by Faiz from its syllabus. Again, it gave me chance to revisit poems that I missed earlier. 

 

The first poem is called, Aaj Bazaar Me Pa Ba Jola Chalo, loosely translated as, let us walk in the market with feet shackled with chains. The poet laments the ignominy as he walks in shackles through the market while questioning the morality of the rulers and the executioners. Nayyara Noor sung a beautiful rendition of the nazm here (and since then has become part of my playlist).

 

The second poem is called, Dhaka se wapsi par, or 'Return from Dhaka' was written by Faiz after he visited Bangladesh -- three years after it became independent from Pakistan. The poet describes how the relationship between Pakistan and Bangladesh changed from being cordial to strangers. He laments that the 'nights of intimacy has been replaced by unkind morning.'

 

The best way to ensure one reads is by legislating them not to read. Thank you, educational boards and states for banning books and verses, as I would never come across them otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

Trust science but not scientists

Questions over the origins of the COVID virus shows the need to scrutinize claims made by scientists.

Courtesy: Upslash

Until May 2021, I trusted scientists blindly. More specifically, I trusted the consensus viewpoint of the scientists blindly. If a claim is published by reputed research journal or backed by consortium of scientists, I would trust it. However, it took one article questioning the origins of COVID-19 that made me question my assumptions. But before I delve into the reasons for my newfound skepticism with scientists, let me set the context.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists across the globe have been warning against a pandemic outbreak. Infections with pandemic potential were considered a major risk and improved coordination between countries was recommended to prevent the spread in future (McClosky 2014). The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2018 listed ‘Disease X’ which represented the “knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”, and aimed to promote cross-cutting R&D to prepare for this eventuality. Even tech billionaire Bill Gates gave a prescient TED talk where he warned that the world is not ready to face a pandemic. All of them signaled that pandemic is not a question of "if but when." I trusted scientists. 

When I heard of an epidemic outbreak in Wuhan that causes pneumonia-like symptoms, I feared the worst: Could this wipe out humanity? How dangerous is this virus? What should we do to protect ourselves? How is it different from previous viruses? I had a million questions and paid close attention to statements made by the scientists. I trusted scientists. 

In the midst of the pandemic, scientists provided detailed information on how transmission occurs and the origins of the pandemic. Viruses jump every day from one species to another. COVID-19, scientists said, is a type of zoonotic transmission. The virus originated from bats and jumped to humans via an intermediary. During Sars-CoV, civets were the intermediary; during MERS, camels were the intermediary; and for COVID-19, perhaps pangolins or other wild animals from the Wuhan wet market might be the intermediary. Since scientists claimed that humans in close proximity to wild animals increase the risk of zoonotic transmission, it seemed obvious that the virus originated from Wuhan wet market. I trusted scientists. 

Around that time, then US President Donald Trump publicly started questioning the origins of the COVID-19 and even suggested that the virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. Since Donald Trump is a divisive figure, the mainstream media ridiculed his allegations. (To be fair, Donald Trump is known to make outlandish remarks). Any scientists questioning the origins of the COVID-19 were dubbed as conspiracy theorists by the mainstream media. I ignored Trump and the right-wing media’s rhetoric. I trusted scientists.

On February 18th 2020, a statement was released in The Lancet by a group of 27 scientists unequivocally declaring that COVID-19 had natural origins. It stated: We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin…[and] overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife. After reading this statement, I was convinced (not that I needed more convincing) that anybody questioning the origins was peddling conspiracy theories. Further, the signatories claimed no conflict of interest. I trusted scientists. 

For more than a year, several scientists questioned the origins of the COVID-19. But they were derided, belittled, or brushed aside as conspiracy theorists by the media, tech industries, and people on one side of the political spectrum (unfortunately, even I was one of them). I trusted (mainstream) scientists.

More than a year later, my world came crashing down in May 2021. I watched a video of Shekhar Gupta summarizing Nicholas Wade’s article on Bulletin for Atomic Scientists which raised questions on the origins of COVID-19. As I was watching this video, I remember thinking whether Nicholas Wade or Bulletin for Atomic Scientists were credible sources. Although I wasn’t convinced regarding the lab-leak theory, a doubt was placed in my head. I slowly started questioning scientists.

As I started reading more on COVID-19 lab theory and things started becoming murkier (or clearer). Yuri Deigin, a Canadian biotech entrepreneur, wrote a  16,000-word essay in April 2020 providing one of the first detailed arguments that the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from a Chinese lab. In Jun 2020, Bret Weinstein, evolutionary biologist, claimed on Joe Rogen’s podcast that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab. For some time, several prominent writers and scientists had been raising questions here, here, and here. I realized one side of the argument had been systematically silenced. I started questioning scientists. 

As lab leak theory gained momentum after May 2021, tech companies, mainstream media and new agencies suddenly changed their stance. Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that researchers at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) fell sick with COVID-19 like symptoms in November 2019, shortly before the confirmed outbreak. In the last week of May 2021, Facebook stopped removing posts that suggested that COVID-19 was man-made. Media organisations started retroactively editing their article like Washington Post’s headline on Senator Tom Cotton’s article. The open letter by 27 scientists published by The Lancet came under scrutiny since scientists had claimed they had no conflict of interest. However, evidence pointed otherwise. Under fire, The Lancet invited the 27 authors of the letter to re-evaluate their competing interests. Surprise, surprise! The person who orchestrated the open letter in 2020, Peter Daszak, had competing interests which was published as an addendum in Lancet later. I started doubting scientists. 

There is no smoke without fire. This sudden shift in the stance required a few scientists, investigative journalists, and citizen journalists who spent months trying to get to the bottom of the issue. It is important to give credence to both sides of the argument before concluding. However, scientists used the mainstream media and tech platforms to successfully thwart their work by hailing themselves as the ‘guardians of truth’ while branding everyone else as conspiracists. I started doubting scientists further.

As I write this article, I have started re-evaluating my opinion on everything I have heard from the scientists recently. In the past, scientists were guilty of p-hacking, where researchers cherry-pick positive results; overseen experiments that might be unethical; culpable to funder bias, where they publish reports favourable to their donors; and even conducted experiments that could wipe humanity from earth (gain-of-function research). I don't blindly trust scientists.

This is not a call of arms against scientists. It is a word of caution. Scientists have made great contributions to humanity. But they are also humans. They also succumb to greed just like politicians. Readers should remain vigilant. I trust science but scrutinize scientists.

(This post is republished from my Substack post on Jul 5th 2021)

Vaccine Mandate: Choice between individual freedom & greater good for society

Issues like vaccine mandate, abortion rights showcases the hypocrisy of liberals and conservatives since the underlying issues is the same: individual freedom vs greater good of society.

Source: Shutterstock

While waiting at a traffic signal I saw a woman holding a poster, “My body, my choice.” My initial reaction was confusion. What is the issue she is standing for? Was she supporting abortion rights or against the vaccine mandate? However, I chuckled at the irony of the situation.

This phrase ‘My body, my choice’ has been used by both liberals and conservatives for two disparate issues like abortion rights and vaccine mandate respectively. However, at its core, the issue remains the same — does the state have the right to impede individual freedom under the behest of the ‘greater good’?

Let us look at the similarity between both the issues from the perspective of the individual and the state.

Abortion Rights

Abortion rights: Individual’s case for abortion rights

Abortion rights is a highly polarizing topic in political and social circles. Supporters of abortion rights argue based on individual freedom. Every woman has the right to decide the future of her pregnancy, whatever may the reasons or circumstances. Since the costs (financial, health, etc) of having a child is predominantly on the woman, the choice to bear a child should be hers only and not on the state.

Abortion rights: State’s (potential) case against abortion rights

In 1980, China Communist Party (CCP) mandated the infamous ‘One Child Policy’ where the government limited one child per family. At that time, it was considered a prescient policy as there were growing fears of famines due to overpopulation albeit without much evidence. However, China is now concerned with the aging population and shrinking working class thanks to the policy. In May 2021, CCP changed to a ‘three-child policy’ to combat rapid depopulation in the country.

Although the evidence of population growth on the economy is tenuous, partly because it is difficult to isolate the impact of population on growth, many economists believe that an aging society is not good for the economy. However, what is not controversial is the impact of economic growth on the lives of people. It leads to better social outcomes like lower maternal mortality rate, higher income, access to basic amenities like water, food, and shelter.Consequently, one can make the case that depopulation is going to harm society in the long run.

Thus, from the state’s perspective, it is in the interest of society for women to have more children. In other words, the state should mandate women not to abort their pregnancy for the ‘greater good’ of society. 

Vaccine Rights

As surprising as it sounds, the state mandating vaccine on its citizens is similar to abortion rights for women. Let me make this argument using the same lens as before — individual and state’s perspective.

Individual’s case for vaccine freedom

Every individual has the right for making choices for themselves. If they believe that vaccine is not good for them in the long run, it is their prerogative to refuse the vaccine, whatever be the reason or circumstance. There is hardly anyone who denies the rights of the individuals is impeded by mandating vaccines for everyone.

The key question is then: what means does the state employ to achieve its end?

Some states are providing incentives like cash to citizens to get vaccinated. Other states have employed stricter practices like banning unvaccinated people from accessing public spaces like theaters and restaurants. In extreme cases, states have suspended employees who refused the vaccine. Specifically, France suspended 3,000 health workers without pay for refusing the Covid vaccine; around 9,000 New York City municipal workers were put on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with a Covid-19 vaccine; Singapore will no longer pay the Covid-19 medical bills for people “unvaccinated by choice.”

State’s case for vaccine mandate

The state (and liberals) support such practices such draconian measures for the following reasons:

1. Individual benefits: Since the vaccine reduces the likelihood of severe hospitalization and deaths, it is in the best interest of the individual to take the vaccine, whether they agree with it or not.
2. Societal benefits: It is for the ‘greater good’ of the society to mandate vaccination for the following reasons:
1. If everyone is vaccinated, the pandemic will be over and we all can go back to our pre-COVID days of walking to public spaces without masks.
2. Vaccination reduces the possibility of mutations of newer variants. Unvaccinated people risk extending the pandemic by becoming hosts to newer variants of concern.
3. Unvaccinated people threaten countless immunocompromised and other vulnerable populations.
4. Since unvaccinated are more likely to be hospitalized with severe complications, it might overwhelm the health care systems.
   

Conservatives’ defense against vaccine mandate: Individual benefits

Pronouncing that vaccine mandate is for your good is like saying to a pregnant woman that having a child is good for you, whether they agree or not. Just like a woman has the right to abort their child for some reason, an individual has the right to refuse the vaccine. The costs (they would argue benefits) are going to be borne by the individual.

Further, no one knows the long-term effects of the recently developed mRNA vaccine. However, no vaccine comes without side effects. There are cases of mysterious clotting disorder among vaccinated population. The numbers are not alarming but if people are scared for some reason, increase awareness instead of employing state coercion.

Conservatives defense against vaccine mandate: Societal benefits

The argument of ‘greater good’ for society requires deeper scrutiny. First, Israel was one of the first countries to vaccinate its entire population by early 2021 and yet as we enter 2022, it has undeclared lockdown. Everyone getting vaccinated is not going eradicate the virus as it can mutate while the immunity from the vaccine dips over time.

Second, there is limited evidence that the virus mutates to a deadlier variant in unvaccinated with a higher probability compared to vaccinated individuals. However, if this is truly a concern, the states (high-income states) should shift their focus to Africa instead where only 9% of people in the continent have been fully vaccinated. Remember, the Omicron variant was first detected in South Africa.

Third, the argument that unvaccinated people are a threat to society is blown out of proportion. Research shows that vaccinated people are just as likely to transmit the virus as unvaccinated people. Should we ban vaccinated people as well to protect the vulnerable population?

The fourth point, I concede, is a valid argument. Unvaccinated people can overwhelm the healthcare system if the cases rise rapidly and pose health risks to medical professionals. Does this justify the state to take draconian measures such as heavy penalties, suspension from work or barring them from public spaces?

Instead, the state can take measures with a specific sunrise and sunset clause — if daily new cases are greater than x, the state is allowed to take restrictive measures for unvaccinated people. However, once the daily new cases are below x, these restrictions would be eased for everyone including the unvaccinated people.

Two questions on abortion rights

Imagine it is 2050 and we find conclusive evidence that having fewer childbirths adversely affects the economy. Further, there is evidence that conceiving children makes a mother happier in the short term.

1. Would you support revoking the abortion rights for women as it is in their and society’s best interest to conceive a child (despite their reservations on long-term impact)?
1. If yes, would you support the withdrawal of abortion rights against women? Worse, mandate women to have at least 2-3 children?
2. If not, is that because you believe individual rights trump the ‘greater good’ argument?
   

Similar questions on vaccine mandate

It is 2021 and we find conclusive evidence that unvaccinated people negatively affects the economy. Further, we have evidence that getting vaccines is better in the short term. 

1. Would you support mandating vaccines for everyone as it is in their and society’s best interest to get vaccinated (despite their reservations on long-term impact)?
1. If yes, would you support the vaccine mandate for everyone?
2. If not, is that because you believe individual rights trump the ‘greater good’ argument?
   

If you agree with the lady’s banner ‘My body, my choice’, then it should not matter whether it is in favor of abortion rights or against the vaccine mandate. She believes the individual choice is superior to state coercion on both the issues: abortion or vaccine rights. You may agree with her or not. But if this is right, that is right. If this is wrong, then that is also wrong.

PS: To reassure the readers, I am doubly-vaccinated (and about to get a booster shot as I write this), believe in human-caused climate change and trust science (but not always scientists).