The kind of lucidity and clarity in the news reports seemed unusual. Typically the reasons for such “high alert” is one of the following three:

1. Reactionary, that is, in response to confirmed terrorist activity. Examples:
   • July 14, 1997: Himachal Pradesh was put on alert after field officials admitted that terrorists have been entering Himachal for re-grouping and planning attacks [source].
   • June 28, 2003: Army formations were on full alert following a suicide attack on a Dogra battalion camp [source].
   • July 22, 2003: Army formations in Jammu & Kashmir were put of full alert following two major suicide attacks on army camps and intelligence reports that there may be more [source].
   • October 1, 2003: Troops along the Indo-Pak border were put on high alert after Pak army’s Border Action Teams provided cover fire to push terrorists into Jammu and Kashmir [source].
   • November 12, 2007: Army was placed on alert in Jammu & Kashmir after terrorist “sleeper cells” had become active [source].
2. Obvious: on occasions like the Republic day or Independence day, or during known periods of terrorist infiltration. Examples:
   • January 26, 2003: Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, and the Northeast were put under high alert to safeguard against terrorist threats to disrupt the Republic Day celebrations [source].
   • March, 18 2004: Indian forces were put on hight alert because the melting snow along the LoC at the end of winter increases terrorist infiltration [source].
   • August 14, 2007: Security forces around New Delhi were on high alert for Independence day to safeguard against terror attacks [source].
   • August 15, 2008: India rolled out a security clampdown ahead of the Independence Day [source].
3. Secretive or vague information. Examples:
   • July 13, 2006: Army cantonments were put on high alert following intelligence reports that terrorists could carry our suicide attacks [source].
   • January 11, 2007: Airports across India were put on high alter follows intelligence reports on possible attempt by terrorists to hijack an aircraft or storm airport terminals [source].
   • January 16, 2008: Central security agencies were put on guard following intelligence reports of a possible suicide attack by a Pakistan-based militant group on “VIPs” in Jammu & Kashmir [source].

In contrast the news articles on possible hijacking and paragliding suicide attacks provided us with a lot more and specific information. It seemed to come with more authority, almost trying to convince us that the government is doing its job and is very serious about security. Looks like among the lessons learnt from 26/11 (and mind you that there ARE changes in policy and execution effected by those lessons) is that it is not sufficient to just do your job, you need to make sure that your stakeholders (the people of India) know that you are doing your job. In other words PR/marketing. So are we going to see more ‘transparency’ from the government on intelligence information and credibility of terrorists threats?

Interestingly, in April 2003, security was beefed up around the Vaishno Devi Temple in Jammu & Kashmir following (specific) intelligence warning about a possible suicide attack [source news article]. The news article reported: “Although inputs regarding general threat perceptions are received regularly, the threat is specific this time,” the sources said. So, a less flattering interpretation is that Indian intelligence has been doing what it can, but its work was of really poor quality, and hence the secretive or vague information on terror threats, and hence a catastrophic intelligence failure that lead to 26/11. Post-26/11, there has been a revamping of the Intelligence and now we are finally getting quality intelligence.

A more cynical possibility is that the 2003 Vaishno Devi alter, and the recent two specific intelligence alert were all just accidents! Indian Intelligence simply got lucky, and so don’t expect anything much to change at all!

Wonder where the truth really lies…

• Pakistani office mate
• Gandhi’s Legacy
• Is it unpatriotic to feel ashamed?
• Glenn Beck’s US health care vs. Indian health care
• On the Institution of Marriage

One is forced to wonder: why is Pat Robertson saying such things knowing fully well that he is hurting people through his statements and hate? There has to be a logical explanation for it, and I think I have found one. My explanation is based on three important assumptions: (a) Pat Robertson believes that Jesus died for everyone’s sins, (b) he believes that the end times is near ^[1], and (c) he is a capitalist^[2].

Now, given that Pat Robertson is a capitalist, he must believe that the capitalist economic principles can be applied everything in life, including sin. So according to him, there must be some smallest unit of sin (arguably the smallest unit corresponds to the quality of sin in the ‘original sin‘), and also that Jesus’s death is worth only so many (finite) units of sin. Given that the end times are around the corner — being a shrewd capitalist one needs to get the best ‘bang for the buck’, so to speak — Pat Robertson probably wants to make Jesus’s death more worthwhile by sinning as much as he can so that the quota of sins for which Jesus died may be used up.

After all, every ‘true’ Christian’s goal is to make Jesus’s death worthwhile (in that Jesus’s death should not be in vain). So, it turns out that Pat Robertson is actually out sinning to make Jesus’s death count for something! Now he also knows that you sin then you will probably go to hell, and yet he pursues this path of validate Jesus’s crucifixion. Could there possibly be a greater sacrifice?

^[1]In fact, in the 70s Pat Robertson has predicted that the world would end in 1982!

^[2]This is more of an inference, than an assumption, based on the fact that Pat Robertson is a businessman, owns a broadcasting station, and sells books for money.

• Zeitgeist — second thoughts
• US Death Penalty Sans An Intellectual Argument
• Apparently, I am going to hell :)
• Who wants $12 M
• Donate for Haiti – With Care

• Know the organization you are donating to: It is very important that you understand where your money is going. If you are particular about your money going to Haiti and Haiti alone, then consider donating to a Haiti-based organization (like Yele). However, realize that the odds are that the sum total of the money that is going to be donated will probably exceed what is necessary urgently, and so although your intention was for the money to go to Haiti, if you are ok with the funds being diverted to another humanitarian effort, then consider donating to globally operating organizations like the ones listed in Charity Navigator. Regardless of the type of charity you choose, ensure that they are in a position to make good use of your donations, ensure that they understand what the situation on the ground demands and that they are up to those demands.
• Do not donate to Haitian government: To the best of my knowledge, the government is no longer functioning, and even if it is, it is one of the most corrupt organizations you can donate to.
• Can you pay half now, half later?: Like I mentioned earlier, the knee jerk reaction of people is to donate to help in disaster relief. In fact, various countries and corporations are pouring vast sums of money into the disaster relief. But disaster relief is only half the battle for the people from Haiti. After relief has come in, and the earthquake and its immediate aftermath has passed, Haitians have to start the long painful process of rebuilding their lives and their nation. Where is the money for that going to come from? Not from the other countries, and definitely not from the corporations, its going to be from you, through your donations! So keep some money aside to donate for the rebuilding efforts. Haiti will need the money in a few months from now and lots of it. Let the big corporations and rich countries bear a large portion of the burden of disaster relief because they are willing and able to do so. You will have to bear the burden of rebuilding the nation because the rich countries and corporations are unwilling to.
• Avoid donating in kind (prefer donations in cash): It is tempting to donate in kind because cash can be misused and swindled, but food and clothing less so and is more likely to reach the victims. However, realize that the food you get at your local super market and/or grocery store is not necessarily what can be consumed by the victims of the disaster. Our food relies on a fairly robust infrastructure to survive transportation and storage. Remember that Haiti currently has no such infrastructure to speak of. Also, the cuisine we eat at home is not necessarily what is eaten by Haitians. As far as clothing goes: again, the clothing that you get locally is suitable for the weather, climate, and surroundings in your area, not necessarily useful in Haiti. So when donating, please avoid donating in kind, consider donating in cash.
• Do not donate with ’strings attached’: In a situation as volatile as the Haiti earthquake, it is very difficult to determine what each component of disaster relief is going to cost, so it is very important for the volunteers/relief specialists on the ground to have the discretion to spend as the need arises. Please keep that in mind while donating. Please don’t donate for your money to be spent on (say) orphanages alone, or hospitals alone. This severely constrains the effectiveness of your donated funds.
• Do not donate too little to too many: This is donation for a disaster, its not your investment portfolio. For your donation to be effective choose a few organizations and donate the largest amount you can to those charities. This will ensure that your funds have a greater impact on both the ground, and the longevity of the organizations themselves.
• Donate now and donate often: Do this for two primary reasons: (a) Victims will need a lot of help in the years to come, please be there for them then, like you are there for them now, and (b) the organizations that are providing relief right now need to stay solvent and functioning to be an effective aid group, and the only way they can be that is through your support and donations.

There are just some of things you need to take care of when donating to disaster relief. For more info, go to Saundra Schimmelpfennig’s blog.

If you cannot donate large sums, then consider donating via text message: [Source: Haiti earthquake: How to help - Rachel Maddow Show, via Patrix]

Donating via text message:

• Text HAITI to 90999
  American
  Donates $10
• Text HAITI to 25383
  International Rescue Committee
  Donates $5
• Text HAITI to 52000
  Salvation Army
  Donates $10
• Text YELE to 501501
  Yéle
  Donates $5
• Text HAITI to 864833
  The United Way
  Donates $5
• Text CERF to 90999
  The United Nations Foundation
  Donates $5
• Text DISASTER to 90999
  Compassion International
• Text HAITI to 20222
  The Clinton Foundation
  Donates $10

The donated amount will be charged to your cell phone bill.

• Pat Robertson, Explained

Here is the first video of the 12 [link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY]

• Ek Chidiya
• Logic -- Flawed at best
• Trial by Jury -- A Flawed Model
• Rajani ka Ishtyle
• Zeitgeist

Image Source: Fox News

Its not surprise that technology has been influenced heavily by people wanting to have sex or see other people have sex. Along the lines of what Scott Adams noted, in the vernacular, technology is driven forward by ostensible nerds, and as noted in the movie “Revenge of the Nerds”, nerds think only about sex when not thinking of being a genius. So any new technology that comes around, you can bet your money on it being used for something related to sex (and/or porn). Historically, when printing press came out, we had porn books follow soon; in the VHS vs. BetaMax war, VHS won primarily because porn videos were released in VHS and not in BetaMax (because BetaMax tapes, at least initially, were only 60 min. long); similarly when cameras came out, we had porn photographs. Why when Poloroids came out, you had home made porn hitting the cultural market in no time! So where is technology driving sex/porn now (or is it the other way around)?^[1]

My first true realization that technology really was all about sex came about in 2005 soon after the iPod came out. In 2005 or so came the iBuzz, which was essentially an iPod-powered-vibrator whose ‘buzz’ was essentially music activated. From then to now, the adult entertainment industry (that how they liked to be called BTW) has been leapfrogging with the technology, and in some cases, driving the technology. For instance, take iBuzz, technology soon improved around it to where now you have Freestyle (NSFW)which is the wireless version of the iBuzz with increased compatibility and quieter motors. Now if that wasn’t good enough for you, you have the Talk2Me (NSFW) which adds an interactive component to the whole deal: it comes with a built-in mic to turn vocalizations into vibrations; so now you can basically talk yourself into an orgasm (WTF)! Oh, and it gets better, the website advertises “Use it as a standard vibe or with your favorite song, your lover’s voice, a podcast, or your boyfriend’s video game.” You boyfriend’s video game?!?! So instead of having sex (which apparently is the second best thing you can do as a couple), let your boyfriend play a video game that you can orgasm to!

But if you insist on having sex (with your partner), but are geographically separated, or somehow detest the idea of having actual physical contact, then Virtual-Stick Synchro is the one for you! This is actually the next technological jump from phone sex. Its as close to virtual reality (and I mean ‘real’ reality, not a pixelated version) and extra-sensory tools that we have gotten with reliability. This tool has a ‘male’ stick for the woman and a ‘female’ hole for the man, and they are hooked up to each other via the internet, with webcams, mics, and other conventional communication mechanisms, and whatever each individual does to/with the stick (resp., or the hole), it’s sensed, transmitted, and replicated by the hole (resp., the stick). It aims to reduce a long distance relationship to a co-existential one in the 5th dimension.

But what if you don’t have a (willing) partner and still insist on having sex. Looks like we have technology working hard for you folks to! Until now, your only reasonable recourse was a blowup doll. Not anymore: recently showcased at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas is Roxxxy TrueCompanion (NSFW). A TrueCompanion is the world first sexbot, that’s right, it’s a robot designed for sex! Its not science fiction anymore. It was artificial intelligence and mutliple personalities depending on your taste.It has sensors all over its body and so it can actually ‘feel’ whatever you are doing to it, and respond appropriately.

The motivation for Roxxxy is a testimony to the argument that nerds really do only think about sex (when they are thinking about being a genius). Now Roxxxy was created by Douglas Hines who was a researcher at Bell Labs (where he learned about the cutting edge in artificial intelligence). Douglas lost a good friends when the twin towers fell on 9/11. Douglas thought that it was sad to not be able to ever talk to him again. So, this made Douglas think seriously about how to implement a robotic representation of a person and have it reflect that person’s personality. And what came out of such a somber thought and effort is a Sexbot! Go figure :-)

Wonder where technology will take us next. My bet is that the publicity surrounding stem cells has less to do with curing diseases and more with the opportunities it provides us to have sex in many more different ways (much like many other technologies preceding it). I think what they are really going for is the Love Lump (NSFW). Any other predictions anyone?

References:
[1] Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/wings/episode5.htm ^

• On strategy games
• If your site has been compromised with phishing attack code…
• Zeitgeist
• Calling all Perl fans in Bangalore
• Logic – Flawed at best

The resolution essentially says that the US Justice Systems are too irrepairably broken to admit a fair and just death penalty. In its own words:

.. more fundamentally Section 210.6 is simply inadequate to address the endemic flaws of the current system. Section 210.6, which in many respects provided the template for contemporary state capital schemes, represents a failed attempt to rationalize the administration of the death penalty and, for the reasons we discuss in greater detail below, its adoption rested on the false assumption that carefully-worded guidance to capital sentencers would meaningfully limit arbitrariness and discrimination in the administration of the American death penalty.

It lays out six important reasons for such disrepair [sourced from the actual text of the resolution (in PDF)]:

1. Section 210.6 advocates for an individualized determination of a crime (specifically murder, under certain circumstances) to be considered for death penalty as appropriate sentencing. However, several states have statutory identification of which murders should command the death penalty, and furthermore, such statuary discretion leaves the jury with a ‘formula’ to award the death sentence (rather than individualized determination).
2. Furthermore, the wide scope of murders/crimes that are currently eligible to extract the death sentence, under various state laws, is antithetical to the “spirit” and gravity of the punishment. The problem is that no state has successfully confined the death penalty to a narrow band of the most aggravated cases. Death eligibility in prevailing statutes remains breathtakingly broad, as aggravating
   factors or their functional equivalent often cover the spectrum of many if not most murders.
3. There is an almost unforgivable racial bias in the ratio of the number of minorities sentenced to death compared to the total number. Persistent efforts by various groups to address this issue has yielded little fruitful results in terms of a legal remedy to this issue.
4. The cost of administering the death-penalty is extremely high, and combined with the ineptitude of the defendants’ legal representation, the state incurs high costs in putting people to death who, arguably, do not deserve the punishment in the first place. The resolution noted: “Despite the fact that “effective assistance of counsel” is a recognized constitutional right, the scope of the right and the nature of the remedy have precluded the courts from being able to ensure the adequacy of representation in capital cases.”
5. In light of DNA evidence and upcoming forensic technologies, the acceptable risk of having some persons sentenced to death later, and perhaps too late, be shown to not have committed the crime for which they were sentenced. This issues is highlighted in House v. Bell, in which, the petitioner sought federal review with substantial new evidence challenging the accuracy of his murder conviction, including DNA evidence conclusively establishing that semen recovered from the victim’s body actually came from the victim’s husband, as well as evidence of a confession to the murder by the husbandthe Tennessee Supreme Court refused to consider whether new DNA evidence presented during death penalty appeals necessitates a new trial, and declined to answer other questions posed.
6. The politicization of judicial and gubernatorial elections has made death penalty a campaign issue, which leads to populist-style administration of the death penalty. Additionally, the politicization of the issue of capital punishment in the legislative sphere limits the capacity of legislatures to promote and maintain statutory reform. The kind of statutory reform that many regard as the most promising for ameliorating arbitrariness and discrimination in the application of the death penalty is strict narrowing of the category of those eligible for capital crimes.

In light of these observations, the resolution concludes: “these conditions strongly suggest that the Institute recognize that the preconditions for an adequately administered regime of capital punishment do not currently exist and cannot reasonably be expected to be achieved.”

• Trial by Jury – A Flawed Model
• Pat Robertson, Explained
• Paying for someone else’s mortgage
• $220K, the RIAA, and more
• Glenn Beck’s US health care vs. Indian health care

“I figured out size does matter in the canine brain. Bill – golden retriever – very smart animal. When he was a puppy and I had to potty train him, if he pooped on the living room carpet, I stuck his nose in it. Three time later, he figured out ‘Oh, I am not supposed to crap here!’. Next two dogs, the same thing.

Now the little brain-dead Chihuahua comes along. She poops on the living room carpet, I stick her nose in it; three times later she thinks ‘Oh, I am not supposed to crap ever!’….. And that’s why they shake.”

The TSA did pretty much the same thing. On December 26th 2009, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane as it was preparing to land in Detroit. The usual noises followed ranging from blaming Obama for the incident to demanding that all Muslims be made to go through special security checks.

This incident could have been prevented if Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was not allowed to board the plane in the first place. All the warning signs were there: Umar’s father had warned the CIA about Umar,  anti-terror chiefs were warned five months ago that an al-Qaeda cell in Yemen was plotting a deadly attack using “The Nigerian”. Disregarding both these (vital) pieces of information, here is someone who bought one-way tickets from Nigeria to Yemen to the USA paying only cash and with no baggages to check-in. This should have raised suspicions, and he should have been singled out for additional security and through additional scanners.

Metaphorically speaking, TSA pooped on the living room carpet and the Nigerian stuck their nose into it! One would expect a rational response to be better mechanisms to profile passengers, not according to race or religion (which seems to be what all the rage is about), but according to passenger behavior. In this case, someone on the “alert list”, paying cash for a one-way transcontinental flight, with no check-in baggage would qualify as suspicious behavior. That would be saying “Oh, I am not supposed to crap here!”.

Instead, the TSA chooses to think “I am not supposed to crap ever!” and decides to put ALL passengers through additional security increasing [Bangkok Post, EUObserver, NY Times].

• Maximum Entropy
• Half way between the gutter and the stars
• Stupid Criminals!
• Legalities with Pit Bull
• Pat Robertson, Explained

By his own admission, it took over nearly 40 seconds to do his research on this matter! Must be a new personal record for him!

Now if you looking for an article from a bunch of losers who have spend more than 40 seconds to get their facts and analysis right (like anyone cares about that!), I recommend the article that was published in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 25th, 2009 [link].

They even have boring bar graphs to present the data related to heart surgeries in Narayana Hrudayalaya (in Bangalore, India) vs. the US (national averages):

image source: The Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/

Enough said. If it wasn’t for Glenn Beck, I would have never known the truth!

• Applying for a PhD: Looking for the right US school
• Gandhi’s Legacy
• Smoking ban?… uh, no.
• The United States of socialism
• Pakistani office mate

• You (the aspiring student) have decided to go for a PhD in your respective discipline.
• You have some idea of what your field of research is going to be
• Based on your own guidelines you have come up with a list of 15-20 schools that you could potentially apply to.
  • If you need help is coming up with this initial list of schools, http://graduate-school.phds.org/ is a great resource for that.
• You are looking to narrow this number down to handful/manageable list such that upon being accepted at one of these schools, you will be able to actually do research in the area of your choice and will actually enjoy it.

I am very aware that every discipline is unique in many ways and what applies to one may not apply to another. Given that my ‘expertise’ is in only one field, namely computer science (simply because that is my area of research), this guide  reads more like a fictional case study.

Like I said before, you have a list of schools (in the US) that you might considering applying to for your PhD, but which ones are right for you? For that, first you have to know the kind of faculty you work well with. Here are a few questions you have to ask yourself to be able to determine that:

1. How narrow/specific is your field of interest? Do you already have your dissertation problem picked out?
   • If are in a very narrow field (with potentially a problem already picked out), then the odds are that there are very few faculty working in this field. Contact them individually and not all at once, until one of them agrees to be your advisor. If no one agrees to it, then pick a different (less narrow) field and read on.
2. How independent is your work style? Do you work efficiently on your own and need an advisor only if you happen to be “stuck”, or do you need a moderate supervisor with weekly status meetings so that the advisor can ensure that you are on track, or are you a complete flake and need constant supervision and micromanagement to get things done?
   • The answer to this question will determine the kind of advisor who works for you, and by extension you should consider applying to the institutions that employ such faculty members.So if you work well will minimal supervision, then you might want to consider working with tenured faculty members who have a relatively large group of students working for them. The larger the group, the less is the amount of time the faculty member can devote to each student. Often, such groups also have a hierarchical structure with post-doctoral researchers having a great amount of interaction with the primary faculty member, and post-docs mentoring senior graduate students, and senior graduate students mentoring the rest.On the other hand, if you work well with moderate supervision, then consider working with a (preferably) tenured faculty member with a moderate size group.If you think you need constant supervision, but are willing to work hard, then consider working with tenure-track faculty members. Tenure-track faculty members are under a constant pressure to publish (or perish) until they get tenure. So they have a lot at stake if you do not publish, so they will ensure that you will be sufficiently motivated, managed, and worked so as to publish research.
3. What kind of a research career are you looking for? Would you publish quickly and publish a lot, or would you rather publish at a pace comfortable to you, but publish really high-quality research? Note that the two choices are often in competition (very few like Erdos managed to do both).
   • This goes to the heart of the kind of faculty you should work with. If you are looking for a lot of publications, then look at tenure/tenure-track faculty who publish in the double digits each year (more on how to determine that coming up). Otherwise, look to tenured faculty whose publication list is not 20 pages long, but their work has been cited time and again (more on how to determine this is coming up as well).

Based on the answer to the above questions you should get have an idea of what kind of faculty you want to work with. Now keep that in mind when browsing through the list of faculty at each school on your list.

The next step is look at each school on your list and determine whether or not the school is worth considering for a PhD application. Here is where the process for each discipline varies. I will proceed ahead like this is a (fictional) case study for the discipline of Computer Science. Say, the field of research interest is Theoretical Computer Science, and the school I am looking at is Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Note that you will have to repeat the following process for each school on that list.

First, open up with department website to get to the list of faculty who are working in your field of research interest. In the specific example of Theoretical Computer Science at MIT, it is http://theory.csail.mit.edu/people.html. Note that in some (smaller) schools/departments they simply have a list of faculty for the entire department and you will have to scour through the research interests of each faulty member before you can figure out what is you pool of potential advisors.

Now begins the painful task of actually, reviewing each individual faculty member to see whether or not they are the right one for you. First, separate the list of faculty into tenure-track faculty and tenured faculty. Typically, assistant professors are tenure-track faculty, and associate professors and professors are tenured faculty. Go to the personal website for each faculty and see if you can find information on the following:

1. The list of students currently in their research group
2. The list of publications from the past five years (don’t go beyond five; faculty research interests tend to migrate). If you cannot find their list of publications on their website then look for this information in other publication aggregation and indexing  sites (like DBLP for publications in Computer Science and Engineering). For instance, the list of publications by Prof. Rivest (of the RSA fame) is http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/r/Rivest:Ronald_L=.html
   In order to determine if the research that the faculty does is of high quality, an imperfect test is to figure out how much their work is cited. On way to do it is to see the venues (journals) where the faculty has published, and what the impact factor of that journal is. For instance, Prof. Rivest’s paper “Translucent Cryptography—An Alternative to Key Escrow, and Its Implementation via Fractional Oblivious Transfer” is published in the Journal of Cryptography whose impact factor (According to http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/impact.html) is 1.97 (top 3.03%). This suggests that the his work is of greater impact than most.

Depending on the answers to the questions asked earlier and the information gained from the faculty website and the internet, shrink the faculty pool to the list of 3 or so faculty that you would consider to be your advisor.

Now repeat this process for each university on your list and then sort your list based the number of eligible faculty per school and the ranking of the school/program itself (The ranking can be obtained from either the department website, wikipedia, or an internet search).

Now divide the list into three categories: top 1/3rd, middle 1/3rd, and bottom 1/3rd in the sorted list. Apply to at least one school in each category to maximize your chances of an acceptance.

I hope this helps some in making the rather opaque job to selecting a school for your PhD easier.

• Dr. Bindra I presume?
• PhDs in India
• The United States of socialism
• Glenn Beck’s US health care vs. Indian health care
• Pakistani office mate

The story of King Mahabali

Mahabali was the king of asuras (who are a class of deites, and not demons; demons are called rakshasas in Hindu mythology). The asuras ruled in Paatala loka (which is one of the 14 worlds, and is not hell; hell is called Narka in Hindu mythology). Mahabali expanded his empire to all the 7 ‘lower’ worlds and then invaded Bhuloka (or the earthly world): the lowest of the 7 ‘higher’ worlds. Then he set his eyes on the remaining ‘higher’ worlds which were ruled by devas (another class of deities). The king of devas, Indra, was worried by this expansion and realized that he was no match for Mahabali, so he approached lord Vishnu to save his kingdom. Vishnu then took the form of vamana, or a brahmin boy, and approached Mahabali for Daana or donation/alms. Vamana asked for three steps of land for him to live in. Mahabali agreed. Then Vamana grew so large that in one step he covered all of the higher worlds, and in another step he covered the Bhuloka, and asked Mahabali where he should place his third step. Realizing that he has been bested, Mahabali asked the third step to be put on his head and Vishnu placed his third step on Mahabali’s head sending him to Paatala.

The story of Ramayana (hopelessly abridged)

Prince Rama is sent on an exile with his wife and brother. They wander to south of Vindhya mountains and down south, king Ravana of Lanka abducts Rama’s wife. While searching for his wife he comes across a kingdom of monkeys (vanaras) and with their help he defeats Ravana and rescues his wife.

Obvious connections

So how do these stories point to Aryans and Dravidians? The most obvious references here are (a)the notion of Mahabali being from the ‘lower’ world (possibly refering to south India) and the devas and Vishnu being from the ‘higher’ workd (possibly refering to north India, and (b) Rama being an Arya putra from Ayodhya (in north India) and Ravana being from Lanka (in the south) and the Dravidian people being referred to as ‘monkeys’.

But we need more than such annotated instrumentation to make our case.

Mahabali and Onam

First, lets look at the case of Mahabali. King Mahabali is said to been a very just king and all of his subjects were said to have lived properously during his reign. Yet he is cast down back to Paatala. Also, Paatala could well refer to the state of Kerala (again, in the south) because the Hindu  festival of Onam celerbrated only in Kerala is a celebration of King Mahabali, their King Mahabali. It is worth noting that Hindus in Kerala celebrate the reign of an asura king who was cast down by Vishnu and interestingly, such a celebration is endemic to Kerala. It is not celebrated anywhere else!

Vijayadashami in north and south India

In north India the Hindu festival of Vijayadashami marks the defeat of Ravana by Rama. However, in south India, the same festival marks the defeat of Mahishaura by Durga. Why such different reasons to mark the same festival? The only bridge between the two is the tale that Rama performed a sacrifice to Durga in the eve of the battle with Ravana. This suggests that these were really two different festivals in two different cultures and religions. They were later joined together by expansion of Hinduism into all of India.

The legend of Vindhya and Agasthya

The legend is that Vindhya mountains (which separates north and south India) started growing to such heights that it challenged the path of sun in the sky. So sage Agastya, in order to stop this growth asked Vindhyas to stoop down so that he may cross to down south. He also extracted a promise that Vindhyas would not grow any higher until he returned back north. But Agastya permanently settled in the south, and so the Vindhyas did not grow anymore.

The story (which is from the puranas, and is said to have occured before the itihaasas) can be interpreted as the northerners’ (Aryans) conquest over the Vindhyas (much like the conquest of Mt. Everest) which paved way for migration to south India, thus triggering contact with the south Indian Dravidians.

Genetic Markers, Caste System, and the North-South Divide

A recently published study of genetic profiles of Indian peoples concludes a distinct divide among Ancestral North Indian (ANI) tribes and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) tribes with very strong evidence of enogamy. The study  also revealed that individuals descending from the ANI tribes tend to be in the ‘higher castes’ and are genetically closer to europeans where as individuals descending from the ASI tribes tend to be in the ‘lower castes’. This again points to an Aryan-Dravidian divide that has been there for millenia, and the strong enogamy suggests conflict and competition between the groups, and looks like the Aryans won the struggle and encoded it into their mythology which was then shared with the Dravidians when they all became a single Hindu people, yet isolated from each other by caste barriers.

• Female Archetypes
• Gandhi’s Legacy
• Is it unpatriotic to feel ashamed?
• Pakistani office mate
• Sex, Drugs and Rock-n-Roll