Reflections: The Reluctant Fundamentalist

Everyone’s been talking about this book and movie lately. And of course, the timing of everything. Yeah, timing is something, because I came across this book a few weeks ago by chance, and after reading the first page, I checked it out, came home and read it all in one sitting. It is that much of an intense and interesting book. Only later did I realize that it was soon coming out (well it has come out as I type) as a movie, adapted and directed by Mira Nair. Coincidence, really. Timing again.

Since everyone’s been talking about this book/movie, dissecting and articulating all the powerful themes questions, I am now at a loss for words Everything has already been said. Anything I say now is going to seem paraphrased, regurgitated from captions and headlines. So, keeping aside the themes, here are some thoughts about the book itself. It is beautifully and intelligently written. Its narrative structure is extremely unique and very well handled.

At a quaint cafe in Lahore, Changez, a smart Pakistani, strikes up a conversation with a mysterious American man about his life and experiences in America. Actually, it is much less of a conversation and more of a monologue, especially how the narrative is, but despite it being so, it is one of the best monologue-esque narrative pieces I have read. It is crisply written with wry humor, sarcasm, intelligence, and eloquence. The American on the other side is never described, only implied. Yet, his character assumes a definitive personality - perhaps tinged with some generalization, but vivid and realistic for the reader to place him. The subject of torn identity/loyalty between one’s country of origin and the country of promise & opportunities is at the core of the book, but that’s not all there is to it. And thankfully, the story doesn’t take us down trite and beaten paths on which several books and movies have ventured. It explores the complicated net of issues surrounding identity, racism, patriotism, capitalism, and fundamentalism as perceived by a Pakistani Muslim post the pivotal turning point of 9/11. The author compellingly drives home the point that anything in its fundamentally extreme state is unfair and dangerous - be it religion or capitalism.

The story moves at a taut and gripping pace. Almost all of us can relate to Changez’s angst, regardless of where we come from. It raises all the hairy and complicated questions that we try to evade and ignore as we go through life just focusing on our little bubble and making sure it stays afloat. But when our bubble gets pricked or comes dangerously close to being destroyed by political forces beyond us, it’s only then do we pause to confront and deal with the difficult questions. According to me, these political questions are far more relevant and thorny than just the socio-cultural dilemmas frequently discussed in this genre.

The ending is ambiguous, yes, but it fits in line with the book’s character. The few characters, and the minimal number of words and pages belie the impact of this book. It’s a very interesting read that I recommend. 

Reflections: Anthem

I thought my days of reading Ayn Rand were behind me. But a good friend recommended this book as a “gentle” version of Ayn Rand. I couldn’t resist reading a book that received such a rare adjective about Ayn Rand!

Everybody is familiar with Rand’s philosophy. This book espouses the same principles of Objectivism. But since it’s a novella, it’s short and effective in succinctly conveying the crux of her philosophy. The setting of the book is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, and Lois Lowry’s The Giver. Humanity has regressed in the name of cooperation, equality, and order. It’s a society that results from an extreme form of Communism that eradicates an individual’s basic rights, freedom, and even identity. Everything is decided by the Council, everyone is forced to be equal to one another, forced to put the collective needs of the society ahead of their own, forced to follow the profession decided by the council, forced to stop thinking independently, etc. What might have been founded to bring about equality to all fellow human-beings is shown to have robbed the very spirit of freedom, identity, progress, and humanity.

The protagonist writes about how he eventually breaks out of the shackles of this society to embrace freedom. He discovers the meaning of the word “I” and connects with the truth that the individual spirit needs to be revered and followed, not ignored and bent to someone else’s will.

In principle, I do agree that the human spirit should be celebrated, appreciated, and respected. Self-interest is a key component of progress - both individually and collectively. It makes no sense for an Utopian world of complete equality between human-beings to exist, for all of us are different, and will remain different. A homogeneous world of equality is unnatural. And it’s absurd for socialistic principles that try to equalize quality of life for all, to turn civilization into the very opposite of their beliefs. It’s like morality and moral principles punishing the innocent. Everything makes sense in principle. But when they are executed literally, and taken to extreme forms, they all fail and end up resulting in a condition that contradicts the very same principles in the first place.

I dread such stifling forms of socialism or communism where basic individuality and freedom is lost. But, I also dread extreme forms of capitalism where basic compassion is lost. I think a similar dystopian story can be written about the disintegration of human civilization due to extreme capitalism, ego, greed, and callousness. In extremes, every principle and theory fails and reverts to its antithesis.

Every aspect of Nature’s design has a delicate balance of cooperation and competition. This balance is supremely vital. From a “selfish” standpoint, we all need to think of our fellow human-beings and care for their welfare as much as we need to honor our own independence and will. Neglecting one over the other will not work. Human society will not progress in either extremes.

This is a good introduction to Ayn Rand for those of you who would like to ease into her philosophy :). I am always impressed by her vociferous, passionate words. She writes with so much conviction and confidence. Her words are great motivation when we need to summon the courage and confidence to follow our heart, stand-up for our principles, and express our freedom.

The Veil of Ignorance

Imagine 20 civilians being selected to go and live on Mars. There would be a number of goods on the planet, including accommodation, food, drink and luxury items. The people who were selected to live on Mars had to decide how the goods should be distributed amongst them. All of these people knew they were going to be living on Mars for an extended period of time and they had to do tasks that were part of the Mars colony (which is one of the main reasons for them being sent there). However none of these people knew what sort of tasks awaited them in Mars, and if they were equipped for them. All the work could be manual, or none of them. So the first suggestion was to equally divide the goods amongst everyone on the colony: from each according to their abilities to each according to their means. However there was an objection - what if there were some who neglected their work, failed at their work, or worse, refused to do their share? Wouldn't it be unfair to give them a share of the goods they didn't deserve? Isn't incentive a good way to make people contribute? As much sense as the objection made, it lead to more problems on resolving what fairness really meant. Is fairness different from giving everyone the same share? (Source: A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls)


This is quite a popular piece. I remember having read this is in one of my Ethics books in the context of Rawl's popular Social Contract Theory, but I don't remember if I ever had a discussion.


The Social Contract Theory emphasizes the need for a social contract amongst people coexisting within a country/colony/community, to ensure liberty and equality for all. In simpler terms, the contract is a set of duties and responsibilities that people need to abide by, and this brings forth the basic principle that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. It also emphasizes reciprocity of 'good' deeds. The people being sent to Mars are in the process of figuring out their Social Contract, or so it seems to me. But here is their core problem - all of them are shrouded in a metaphorical veil of ignorance since none of them have any clue of how their talents and abilities will benefit them in Mars. For all they know, a person who is a scholar on Earth maybe reduced to a nobody on Mars, and a bus driver on Earth maybe the most sought after person on Mars, based on the needs and work conditions. With such bleak understanding of life on another planet it now is a challenge to come up with a Social Contract.


Rawl's philosophy is that, given such a situation, people's general tendency is to be cautious from the danger of ending up in the lower rungs of the new society. Hence everyone would try to come up with a contract that ensures maximum/equal benefit to the least advantaged (the maximin rule). This, in his view is a good experiment for determining democracy - the liberal form of democracy. Is this form of equality really fair? Or are there prejudices despite the veil of ignorance which get carried onto framing the new Social Contract?


I've been putting off writing about this for a while now, for all I know about political "science" are the meaning behind capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, dictatorship, monarchy and anarchy... enough to have some opinions, but probably not deep and robust enough. I'm not a person who follows enough of the political arena or analyzes history to have opinions on what works when, how and what fails, when and how. Therefore, with this limited extent of knowledge I try to analyze this chapter.


In my view (political definitions apart), I think it is impossible to guarantee equality to all... it is inherently impossible with the way the world is structured. I say this by popping onto a higher level, if we are to assume ourselves to be ruled by God/Nature. Call it Karma, or any other term, I believe one is entitled to what he deserves through his actions/deeds, and not every person can receive the same form of equality. Not all of us can be rich, none of our lives can be "equal" in the truest sense. None of the guys who will land in Mars have the same type of "equal" opportunities awaiting, and therein equality starts to crack even before there can be a contract.


So, would being behind the veil of ignorance help in shaping better social contracts that at least mitigates the state of the lower rungs? Yes, it appears so. Isn't our existence the survival of the fittest? Why bother rescuing those who can't survive on their own, by compromising on what the winners truly deserve? Well, I think this question borders on the principles of Capitalism versus Communism... or probably Socialism to some extent.


My view is that each person should have all the basic rights and basic amenities available. But then, how much of the share he is entitled to is dependent on how much he contributes to society/community, for rights and duties do go hand in hand. Every person will/and should have some way to contribute to the community. If one cannot contribute due to severe disabilities then is he doomed? No that is unfair. So should he get the same share as a person who works and toils everyday. No that's not fair either. He should still be entitled to basic amenities (out of dignity and empathy to his life), but the person who works will be entitled to more than just the basic. Now what exactly is the definition of "basic"? What if there aren't enough resources to help the disabled? Should the rest pool in and compromise on their rewards to be shared with the rest? Is that the true meaning behind the maximin rule? Maybe.


It takes a humanitarian turn. So yes, being behind the veil does give us a sense of uncertainty, of the need to save ourselves if we become helpless, and that attempts to tug at our humanitarian conscience, which is necessary to be in place while framing Social Contracts.


Those with more political insight, I would love to hear your views! :)