Sarcasm And Social Acceptability

Sarcasm and socially unacceptable behavior has nearly ruined my life in all normal ways. It has also made it incredibly amusing and funny on a deeper and much more important level.

As every human action boils down to trade, I have to admit that overall my strategy was not at all a rip-off. In fact, it was a wonderful deal, a reasonable trade-off.  I have behaved in such a manner for various reasons which are rather complicated. I would say it is often because of my honesty, good-will, benevolence, deep love for humanity-and of course, my naïve, gullible nature!

It is often said that “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”. We also hear “A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.” I have always wondered whether there could be notions which are so far from the truth. How someone of normal intelligence can seriously hold any of these moralistic, “church sermon” like rationalizations is completely beyond me! Rational inquiries of moral philosophers were confined to politically correct, “mushy” virtues like unconditional love, kindness, compassion and benevolence. Even moral philosophers who took pride in their political incorrectness had confined their rigorous analysis to more worthy virtues like integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride and of course, selfishness. Very few have anything good to say on one of the most feared, despised, sickening, malevolent, humiliating form of doublespeak which makes people flee and shun the light of the day: sarcasm. When even apostles of selfishness like Nathaniel Branden say “Aside from cases of violent coercion, as when someone points a gun at you, you are responsible for your reactions. No one “makes” you become sarcastic”, we should know that the fate of sarcasm is bleak indeed. A bit of iconoclasm is therefore in order.

We might say that sarcasm is a “conversational scapegoat”, and unfairly so. The socially beneficial effects of sarcasm need to be defended hard. Sarcasm goes against the inflicting person, but it helps the truth reach him faster, in ways which are not too obvious. A man faces a painful dilemma when he faces deeply insulting sarcasm. He is compelled to prove his backbone by a tight slap-or he can listen silently, smiling like an imbecile thinking he is being smart & tactful. The sad fact is that it proves that he has neither intelligence nor a backbone, as the one who hurled the insult might know too well that it is true and didn’t expect a slap, precisely for that reason! I remember an instance when I hurled an insult which hits where it hurts the most-family, and the victim listened silently, not out of fear of a more public humiliation, but because he knew it was just another general, categorical statement intended at no one in particular- and because only truth hurts-and because he was a man of immense self esteem. Well crafted sarcasm puts such a person in the position of a mink that walks blindly into a scented trap. If it hurts so much, it can only be because it is true and such sarcasm deserves the highest praise, not condemnation. Given certain narrow assumptions, truth as such should never hurt the innocent. Like happiness, “Truth” should be considered an Aristotelian “chief good”, pursued for its own sake. As scathing sarcasm is often truth, it should be ranked higher. Continue reading »

Life, Death And All That!

It is my dream to make a living out of writing and I had intended to do so till I pack my bags to hell. But, there are moments when it is hard for one to read or write. One such moment is when one knows he is supposed to be packing his bags to hell. It couldn’t get any tougher than this!

Two months back, I was having some pain in my tongue as of a lesion, and doctors said that it is highly probable that it is oral cancer. When I searched on the internet, I had all the symptoms, except that I had pain. I did not know why I was being singled out for this. I never smoked, used any tobacco product, tasted alcohol, had sex or even exposed myself to sun excessively. Even my young age made it highly unlikely. I do not deserve this, my mind said. Continue reading »

On Hayek

“At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination—when five minutes of thought should have told them what would happen if somebody tried to practice what they preached. Now I know that they didn’t do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently.”-Ayn Rand
Continue reading »

My Facebook Updates

But, why am I not impressed?

Given my kindness and compassion, the last thing I want is to hurt another person’s sentiments. Sometimes I feel that I should have laughed at their faces or at least slapped, but it all goes unrewarded. Does truth hurt as much?

With age, comes wisdom-and humility! Hopefully, I won’t be an exception. Certainly one reason I prefer a dowdy old hag who understands my insults to a pretty young girl who can’t tell Satire from Sartre, to make a general categorical statement not intended at anyone in particular. More than common honesty and common decency, I prefer common sense. One should at least cringe in shame. Continue reading »

Corruption in Liberty Institute

Corruption in the Non Profit sector is more of a rule than an exception. I am compelled to go open about my own experiences with a think tank in public interest. I hope that all keep their eyes and ears open.

I had to leave my job with Liberty Institute, a free market think tank based in New Delhi run by Barun S Mitra, this week. After six mails, I did not get a single written explanation or even an email on why I had to sign documents related to a project funded by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation I did not work on. I heard not a word on why I was not getting an explanation on the financial mishandling. A significant part of my pay was purposefully delayed for nearly seven months. I was also burdened with work related emails in a cancer threat phase.

In the first week of October, a colleague asked me to work on a grant application for Empowering India, our project on Democracy. I told politely that I do not do such work which is against my convictions. I sent a mail to Barun mildly telling him that I cannot work on it. I did not get a reply.

In the middle of December, I got a salary cheque written in the name of the Empowering India project. I never worked on that project as such. I sent him a mail asking why, and did not get a reply though I was getting many other mails. Next day, I was told that it was for my work in August. There were only a few blog posts in August on the Empowering India blog. The amount was disproportionate. There was some talk related to transfer of funds. I was told that it is just a technical matter. I decided to believe him till proven otherwise. I brought up what happened months back with the democracy grant application. He said that he never asked me to do so. He had in fact mailed me to discuss with two others on what to do about it.I noticed that mail only later when searching through mails, after things became absolutely clear to me. The only work related mails which went without a reply were the ones in which I disagree.

Last week, I sifted through the documents as I felt suspicion when I was asked to sign another blank document. I found that the funding for “Empowering India” was from September to December, and that the cheque was dated in the first week of October. Why am I supposed to believe now that it was for my work in August? Why did I get a disproportionate amount for my work on the “Ayn Rand in India” initiative in June and July? I heard from Barun that the Institute itself funds the Ayn Rand initiative. I heard from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation that they partly fund it. There were only four blog posts in September on the Empowering India blog. I sent a mail asking why such mails go unexplained. There was no reply for it too. I heard from the accountant who is associated with the organization for several years that it must be to take money from Friedrich Naumann Foundation. He said it not as an accusation, but as a matter of fact. He was certainly not aware of the fact that it will be taken seriously by me. It was only then I considered such a possibility.

We have an initiative on Ayn Rand‘s philosophy. A few months back, a post of mine criticizing Ayn Rand’s ethics was blocked from the e-group for no reason. I heard nothing from him except that he did it.

There was extreme consistency in the way I got my pay cheque. I got my pay of June and July in the middle of August. I got my pay of August and September only in October third week, and then a lot less. Same happened in November. I heard that it was because of technical reasons related to Income tax, and that he could not pay more till I get a new PAN number. I got to know from the accountant that Barun could easily pay double as much as he had mentioned. How could he run an organization for one and a half decades and not know this fact? I mentioned this fact on the second on December and still I got a fraction of what I could get even when he could easily pay the whole of the last three months salary and more even in the absence of the PAN number. A colleague asked me: “You work much more than all of us. Why are you paid so little then?” I dismissed it saying I don’t think Barun will purposefully do such things.

I got my new PAN number in the second week of December. I did not get what I was supposed to get. In the end of December, I heard from a person who takes contract from the organization that I have to be careful. I told him that my experiences were overall good, and that he was just imagining things. When I got my pay in January twenty days after the technical reasons were removed, it was still a fraction of what I was supposed to get, .

More than a month back, when I was suspected of having oral cancer (It was later found to be an inflammation), the person who had warned me before informed that the same thing happened to many people who worked here when they left the organization. It had happened to him too.

Forty days had passed since he could pay me whatever he had to pay me, which he could have always paid me in any case. Yet I never heard a word from him in all these months. Whenever I got my money, it was when I tell him that I am running out of money. Once, it was when he asked me to pay for something. It is a fact Barun cannot fail to see. Whenever I decide to leave the job-and it happened thrice-he will call me up before me telling him so, and whenever he calls me up, I know why he calls me up. He knows well that he had driven me to such a decision. So, my delayed pay is a truth Barun cannot fail to know. One never makes such a huge evasion out of ignorance.

When I was on leave for medical checkups and rest, I was burdened with work related emails. He asked our IT Manager to ask me to get the newsletter done as soon as possible. When it got too much, I sent him a single word “Please!”. I did not get a reply. The mails continued. I waited for one more day and I asked my pay: I got it all within a few hours with an unbelievable excuse that it was because of the PAN number. Why was it not possible for 40 days after I got the PAN number? Why was it easily possible in a few hours after I asked?  I was never given a proper, sensible explanation. One thing is clear: It has nothing whatsoever to do with the PAN number. I was told that I was asked to work as he did not want me to get sucked into it.  However, later incidents indicate that it is definitely not at all the case.

The days before I left, I sent two more mails to him expressing why I am leaving, which went without a reply. The day I left, I shouted on phone that he should send the cheque and experience certificate to my room. It should be clear by then that it is over. Not surprisingly, when he came to office that day, he asked everyone where I am, as if he had no idea of what happened. I completely expected this. He went out of his way to prove that he was surprised. To him, it makes sense to pretend ignorance from a “strategical” point of view. It made only things obvious to me. I got a mail from Barun saying that he is beginning to understand things. I replied back asking for an explanation again and there was no reply for it either.

Tactically, it might even make sense for a person to pretend not to notice certain things, even if it means not to prevent the humiliation which one goes through. Think of a situation in which one goes out of his way to prove that he was surprised to be humiliated! 

When I collected my final pay cheque, I again got a blank voucher to sign. I refused to sign. The IT Manager said it is a voucher and does not have to be filled. I pointed out that it was written:”For the following” and I myself wrote Climate Change Project and signed it. When I got back to my room and checked copies of the previous vouchers, none of them were blank and they were all filled by the organization. So, all this is a lie.

It looks like my employer is struggling to justify it through devious means right now, and it is quite possible that something as unbelievable might come up. My access to office email is blocked (I know that it could be typical of organizations) and previous emails would most likely be removed. Google server saves all the mails in any case and nothing much could be done by him in that regard to wipe out the evidence. I got to know that Barun sought outside help to disable my email account even when he could have asked our IT Manager. It all was done in a few hours. The person who disabled my email account forwarded Barun’s email asking him to change the password of my account and that of his. He was the same person who warned me that Barun doesn’t pay employees properly, especially when they leave the organization.

I think I deserve an answer on the documents I had signed.

Post Script: Last Sunday, the accountant called me up to say that there are some bills the organization had to pay me. I was expecting it totally, though I found no such possibility. I said that I have no more payments to receive and it should definitely be a mistake. “Thanks, but no thanks!” He got me have a look at the figures, and explained how. I was foxed for a moment and then suddenly I noticed that the money I got at the end of January, in the disease threat phase was missing. Barun will not miss it, given all the noise I made. It was more than any single payment I received in the last fifteen months, as it included whatever that was pending. Honestly, Liberty Institute doesn’t have the money to buy me. I seriously doubt whether anyone else has either. 

Not surprisingly, the voucher on “Empowering India” was rewritten in the name of the “Climate change project”, and I was asked to sign it again. I refused to sign without a written explanation and asked for a copy of the voucher. The accountant was not willing to provide a copy without me signing it. There were three vouchers to sign, and none of them were blank like the one I was asked to sign recently. Nor were any of the other ones I signed before. I also noticed that the amount spent on a Climate Change Conference I attended in February 2010 was  only above 60% of what was written in that name, which is to be redeemed by the Heartland Institute, which publishes the Non-Governmental International Panel Of Climate Change (NIPCC) Report. The whole pay of mine for the month of February was included as a honorarium for attending the conference, though only a part of it could be used for that purpose.  After I had left the office, I got a call saying that I have to pay more than I was told I was supposed to be paid. The accountant said that juggling funds is something usually done by the organization and that it is a normal and “appropriate” practice. Things cannot be more apparent.

I had informed Subodh Kumar of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. Initially, he was very much co-operative and listened to my side. I was told that it would be prudent if I am not involved, and the internal decisions and actions will not be shared with me or any other outsider. I sent a mail agreeing, and asking what I have to do with the documents waiting to be signed based on what they have found out. There was no reply. When I got to know when I noticed that mishandling happened in the funds of the Heartland Institute, I mailed Friedrich Naumann foundation again asking for the details of the vouchers previously redeemed in my name as it must have happened elsewhere too. There was no reply for it either, though they were supposed to let me know. I informed the Heartland Institute too of the financial mishandling. When there was no reply initially, I wrote that I will have to seek other ways to deal with it. They let me know that all payments were made in the name of Barun Mitra and they have no payment documents related to me. If such documents don’t reach the Heartland Institute, why should Barun take the risk of writing it in their account? I mailed again asking in detail what could be done, but I am still waiting for the reply after many days. Mohit Satyanand, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Liberty Institute told me that he was sorry my pay was delayed, and that he was glad that the organization played by Income tax rules. I was also expected to say if the organization owes me any money. There was no reply when I pointed out that it had nothing to do with Income Tax regulations. After seven mails from my side saying that I can prove my claims, he didn’t ask for any proof. He still claims that he doesn’t understand my arguments on financial mishandling as my communication is not “good enough”. When I pursued it further, he still evaded my claims of having enough proof and just asked whether I know that this qualify as libel. I said I don’t fear such things a bit. I did not know that libel laws are compatible for liberty and libel is far more reprehensible that financial mishandling!  I was asked to spare them and divert my attention to more “productive matters”. One thing is certain.

I am really surprised by the insensitivity of people concerned towards truth and matters of importance. I am treated and looked down upon as a miscreant who talks of things which should not be talked about.

Post Script 2: I finally got a reply from Friedrich Naumann foundation saying that they still maintain that they thank me for raising my concern and that there will be no more final communication. It is clear to me what it means. If they wanted to deny the financial mishandling, they would have done so, as it involves their organization too. I got to know from my father that Barun called him up and threatened that he will take legal action against me for the blog post and aggressive emails-and that my parents should take me home and get me treated for mental illness. It is obvious why Barun needs me out of Delhi as all evidence is against him. As if it didn’t matter that Barun emailed me continuously on work even after me asking him to stop in a phase when I was struggling with pain and doctors had written off my prospects for a long life. Still, no communication whatsoever to me at all on relevant matters he had to answer.  I still stand by my positions and won’t move an inch back. I won’t withdraw a single legitimate sentence, and will fight this to the end of my life if necessary.

Interestingly, Barun sent a boy hired for the Empowering India project funded by Friedrich Naumann Foundation to my apartment, asking for accommodation. If FNF hasn’t stopped the funding, the reasons must be obvious.

Post Script 3: The funding from Friedrich Naumann Foundation still continues, and is said to be much more than that of the previous session. Subodh Kumar of Friedrich Naumann Foundation clearly knows that it is a case of corruption, and must have acted to cover this up.

I have backed up copies of all relevant emails and documents I had signed. It includes:

1) Emails which prove that I didn’t work on the Empowering India project as such, and that the amount reimbursed from the Heartland Institute was partly for my work on other initiatives

2) Documents on financial mishandling in the funds of the Heartland Institute and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation. Emails which show that the Chairman of the Board of directors had no interest in looking into the evidence even after continuous requests from my part. Emails which indicate that the two funding organizations didn’t disclose anything, or look further into evidence from my part. 

3) Several emails to Barun asking for a written explanation.

4) Documents which might prove that I was given blank vouchers

5)Emails which prove that Barun expressed surprise on me leaving the organization even after I had threatened many times to leave if no explanation is given on email, and after asking my experience certificate on phone

6) Emails which prove that Barun lied on Income tax regulations and that he delayed pay even after the regulatory reasons were over, and after I had mailed him asking it

7) Emails which prove that Barun continued to mail me even after I asked him to stop in a death threat phase.

8 ) Call details which prove that Barun sent people to my apartment, and threatened my father with legal action when there was no communication to me even after I left the job for these reasons.

 9) The details of my pay too are with me and could be verified from the bank accounts. 

10) If Barun had disabled my account and removed mails, Google server will have the copies.

Whatever I have claimed and could be proven, will be proven if necessary. I believe in freedom of speech, and as long as I believe truth to be on my side, I think I am entitled to, even obliged to tell it. There can be no legitimate purpose in faking reality and covering up the truth.

Shanu Athiparambath 

Amusing Emails

My dearest,

I owe you an apology. I always apologize when I am in the wrong. However, I shouldn’t expect others to leave it at that, as it is always easy to ask others to “move on” after the gain. You shouldn’t’ ever sacrifice justice to mercy, as probably the “cost-benefit analysis” arguments against justice often leaves much to be desired. I once asked a person to ‘move on” with a “Please”, and he went on blindly, to his own detriment, which would have come in any case. Many libertarian economists reject the concept of public goods, but I have always considered it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To me, delivering justice is definitely a public good as both lose, leaving the incalculable benefits to the “society”. An abstraction nevertheless, but that is not my point, which might be well taken.

I wanted to come over there to give you what I had mentioned on phone, which was something I myself brought up definitely not after setting the ground for weeks with a twisted, calculating, purpose in my convoluted mind. I know that after a while, it all looks too much to be a coincidence, but it is. However, it hurts my ego to come, which has become as fragile as it can get lately. I would certainly prefer you collecting it from me, as I never enjoy things which do not belong to me, as of a sick revulsion. I’ll lose self respect when I do, but the loss is no less despicable as I once had it. I can’t make up for your mental anguish or prolonged discomfort, but we all can only do so much. Continue reading »

The Hobbesian Myth

Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679)

While most political theorists consider Thomas Hobbes as a political individualist, the most popular argument against individualism in politics is still the Hobbesian notion that in the absence of the state, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Hobbes’ only disagreement with political sovereignty was that people should be allowed as much as a right to disobey the orders of the king when their life is under threat. Almost everyone has accepted the Hobbesian myth lock, stock and barrel though valid arguments for this seemingly obvious tenet never quite seem to emerge. There is no opponent of anarchy whose central argument eventually does not boil down to the “sophisticated” notion that without a monopoly of force, we will all be at each other’s throat.

Was Hobbes Right?

What if Hobbes was wrong through and through? The structure of rationalizations against market anarchy would crumble, with political authoritarians left with nothing but rubble. Libertarian anarchists think that Hobbes’ social contract theory is discredited by theory and experience. Human history is full of instances in which men found far more efficient, non-governmental ways to settle their disagreements. Continue reading »

A Twisted Conversation

Me: It was based on “The Glass Menagerie” by Tennessee Williams.

She: Really?

Me: You did not know that? It is hard to know whether you are being sarcastic or not, because you studied Literature. My father had to teach it in college. I did not like “The Glass Menagerie” even while reading. I do not like such plays. People want to feel superior to the crippled Laura Wingfield. I do not understand such people. But, it is an Ayn Rand-ian concept which I do not buy completely. She liked the play “Cyrano De Bergerac”.

She: I do not think that they lead such miserable lives. I knew a guy who could not walk well. But, he was confident and secure. I never felt sorry for him, or thought him to be any lesser than me. In fact, for a long time it never occurred to me that he is a disabled person.

She:  This song has a nice rhythm to it. You listen, and discard. Doesn’t stay with you! Continue reading »

Friends Of Labor

Trade unions in India have demanded economic stimulus packages intended to increase employment in the next budget. They also emphasized the need for a national minimum wage law, which would bring in NREGS workers too under it. Curiously enough, the memorandum also calls for a prohibition on the entry of foreign companies and big corporates into the retail trade. Higher wages are expected by labor leaders when industries which make such higher wages possible are supposed to be regulated and taxed out of existence. Ayn Rand had the typical anti-capitalistic mentality in mind when she criticized people who desire cheap gasoline and at the same time want the industry to be taxed out of existence. Continue reading »

Two Champions Of Liberty

Frederic Bastiat

The ideas of Frederic Bastiat have great relevance in modern day India where it is widely believed that “There is no better investment than taxes.” There is no better argument against the claim that trade will gain by Government spending on events like Commonwealth Games than Bastiat’s six word retort that “a thief would do the same”. Reading Bastiat will help us see that employment generated by public work projects like NREGA “hides a great deal of prevented labor, which is not seen”. Nothing summarizes the attitude behind seeing profit in such destructive policies than his question: “What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?” Protectionist fallacies in his days are as prevalent now, not just in India, but in all parts of the world. Attempts to extend wealth by extension of credit have resulted in double digit inflation for a considerable period of time. The roots of the fallacy behind confusing cash with products and paper money with cash were obvious to Bastiat.

I personally feel grateful to have come across Bastiat’s petition of the candle makers early in my life. He was the first proper Economist I had read. He held views strikingly similar to that of my favorite novelist-philosopher, Ayn Rand. Both made no theoretical original contribution to their respective fields, but arguably have advanced the cause of liberty more than almost everyone else. They spoke obvious truths which were habitually ignored. Few were as good at reductio ad absurdum as Rand and Bastiat. Both are looked down upon by the academia for lacking theoretical depth, writing intelligently, and characteristics which amounted to “lack of scholarly virtues” and “incompetence” in the eyes of the establishment. Despite the truckloads of avoidable mistakes both have made, they have shown us how much is possible without compromising intellectual rigor or pandering to men’s innate predispositions which are so inimical to the spirit of liberty. It is hard not to see the exceptional talent which roars through their works.

Ayn Rand

Bastiat, like Rand clearly saw the error of anti-capitalists who abhorred doctrines, systems and principles and ridiculed their “practice without theory and without principle.” They were united against the absurd claim that theory and practice stood opposed to each other. Both rejected pragmatism and understood where irrational skepticism and moral relativism will lead us to. Everything is “a point of view”, they knew, is a notion in which only fools and liars believe in, as it is a rationalization of the unjustifiable attitude that anything goes as long as one can get away with it! Men, both held, can’t survive by adopting a strategy of living on the range of the moment. Bastiat knew that economic science in itself can’t pronounce value judgments, but didn’t hesitate in seeing robbery for what it is, unlike later economists like Mises who were tied down by their rejection of moral absolutism. They found agreement in the conclusion that if morality was pitted against the self interest of a person, he will be forced to give up his moral sense. Bastiat went beyond to say that man will lose his moral sense or respect for law if one stood against the other. Rightful interests of men, they knew, won’t ever clash. The absurdity in imposing morality through force was something Rand and Bastiat stated in strikingly similar words. Rand, like Bastiat, scorned Government officials as exacting parasites. “Naked greed and misconceived philanthropy”, it is true, is the root of all social evils. When Bastiat asked “If mankind is not competent to judge for itself, why do they talk so much about universal suffrage?”, Rand thundered, according to the tribal notion, “You’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others”. They had the same answer to the welfare state: “At whose expense?”

Ayn Rand considered the United States as the noblest country in the history of mankind based on rational self interest, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and limited Government. She asked her readers to look at the results and honestly look into their own conscience. Bastiat observed that United States was one country in the world where law was kept in a realm which he considered appropriate and there is no place on earth where so much social order exists. In the eyes of both the thinkers, slavery which persisted in the United States much into the nineteenth century was in complete contradiction with the principles on which the country was based.  Bastiat was the first to point out the notion that that liberty and competition leads to monopoly is a glaringly obvious fallacy, a position which Rand shared.

Their views on self interest were ridden with inconsistencies, but what they got right is far less appreciated by free market thinkers even today. Bastiat, unlike Rand held the largely indefensible position that one can work in social sciences without any reference to self interest. There is much merit in his position, though, in the sense that one would be compelled to support Capitalism even if one believed in the moral code of altruism, a point which Rand didn’t concede. However Bastiat missed the larger truth that people vote altruistically (as recent studies on voter behavior tells us), and as long as they remain in the state of colossal economic ignorance they are bound to support policies which harm the very larger good they have in mind. If voters rejected the morality of altruism, at least the ones who get a raw deal in the end will oppose a disastrous policy. If they considered altruism a virtue or common good a worthy end to pursue, the ones who oppose such a policy would be statistically insignificant.

There is a growing interest in the ideas of Ayn Rand, but Bastiat remains virtually unknown outside the circle of a minority of insiders. Nothing is required now than a revival of his much valuable insights. To paraphrase Henry Hazlitt, “We could use more Bastiats today”!