The Farmer's Fortitude

Might I suggest a way
To contemplate the past
Not to stamp it out 
Or to make it last
But to embrace it with
The farmer's fortitude.

As the rains ravage on
For days and days until
All that sprouted delight
Were uprooted and gone
Roots and leaves no more
Everything strewn about.

The son of the land does
Feel the pain and loss
But sit and cry he knows
Along with being sloth
Will surely bring the foe
A demon cloaked in dark.

No matter what they say
About these times in grey
To work he goes in time
With his axe and sweat
Scent of thyme in wind
Hopefulness abreast.

As the decay goes in mud
It leaves behind its trace
Red and brown in colour
Lush in flowing veins
All for a man to see
Life's possibilities.

So out he goes and strews
Future greens for bloom
Shapes and sizes changed
Of fields and paths archaic
For experiences bring
New ways to see things.

And in this land he makes
Not what he used to till
And went home and ate
But all of this and more
In a manner that speaks 
Of a man who grew wings.

Is it worse to be cruel to a fox than to a flea?

This universe appears to have emerged from a mystery,
And looks to end its journey beyond the reach of infinity,
So let the chains of reason wither for the lush of fantasy,
Only bound by the anomaly that we are one and lonely.

This we believe as we glide through the breeze,
Of trans-galactic sunspots and molten lava trees,
And in the bowels of space we find the hiding place,
Of a cauldron that churns matter in scorching pace.

Thaliums and bismuths, radiums and manganese,
Chromium planets with diamond stars in the freeze,
Beyond and near and below the reaches of the void,
Elements and compounds, they divide and collide. 

Yet among all this commotion lies the reality,
That life is to be lived with another live entity.
Not with supernovas that drench horizons in light,
Nor with starbursts that pigment the dark night.

You see for all their heat they lack that warmth,
And though corporeal they are still lifeless forms,
Spending their days in manners strange and odd,
A bit like stones and rocks serenading a roughshod.

Now the pangs of loneliness begin to devour us,
A blackhole that renders joy and light lifeless,
And so we scour across the span of the universe,
For a being that shares a semblance of our senses.

Out it catapults like a canonball across the sky,
Giant jupiters jutting out for what seem like eyes,
Extending its claws to us in a way that speaks,
Of someone who needs warmth from the chilly peaks.

With the deep black canopy as the stage for life,
And a back that shines like the masterchef knives,
The flea takes the spotlight in this vast expanse,
An ocean of matter where not a thing can dance.

And so begins our journey with this beast of wonder,
A marvel we recognize when our distractions asunder,
For amidst the din of the day we fail to feel perceive,
What a little fantasy and empathy can achieve.

But one day this flea will bite and you will think,
"What an annoying pest, shall I just kill and leave?",
Yet one day all wonders will vanish into heap and dust,
So please savour each day and try to be cruel to none.

[Qn 1, General Paper I, Examination Fellowship, September 2007, All Souls College]

Should investors be able to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages?

At a Congressional hearing examining the role of federal regulators in instigating the Great Recession, Alan Greenspan, a man once hailed by many as the most powerful banker in the world, was hurled with the accusation that his inviolable belief in the supremacy of unfettered and competitive markets to organize economies was grossly erroneous. As someone who had the authority to oversee and modulate lending practices across a range of institutions, it was alleged that his 'ideology' had perniciously interfered with his duties as one of the chief guardians of the financial stability of the nation. But Alan Greenspan was not a man to be fazed by the committee's probing. In his characteristically bland yet composed response, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve admitted that he had indeed discovered flaws in his 'conceptual framework for interpreting reality' and though it had stood him in good stead for over forty years, the events surrounding the financial crisis had cast the foundation of his beliefs into much doubt. Particularly, the spectacular failure of lending institutions to safeguard their own self-interest as well as their shareholders' equity had caused this economist a great deal of consternation and disbelief. 

      While the initial cataclysm of the crisis has receded from our memories, it is worth reflecting on Greenspan's 'conceptual framework' for a few reasons. The intellectual edifice that informed his world-view was in no small measure shared by a number of economists over the last decade, if not the last century. In fact, it still has widespread currency among many contemporary figures. From Robert Lucas, Jr. to Lawrence Summers, the most influential voices of the dismal science believe that societies can achieve the greatest prosperity when individuals are left free to choose. Goods, in their widest sense, can be traded voluntarily between parties who wish to exchange it and as long as they are increasing their well-being without impinging upon the liberty or utility of someone else, transactions in all shapes and guises are permitted. Such libertarian market thinking gained widespread traction over the last thirty years and leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan endorsed this logic with great enthusiasm, both intellectually as well as in matters praxis. As a result, with the academic as well as political establishments favouring laissez-faire capitalism, it seemed like the era of deregulation and market triumphalism was finally here to stay. However, the consequences of this shift in the paradigm governing economies was not just felt solely in the arena of markets but had extended deep into areas of society previously governed by non-market norms.

     Michael Sandel, a renowned moral philosopher whose insights are the springboard for many of the thoughts expressed here, notes that almost anything and everything is up for sale and consumption these days - from the right to kill endangered species to the practice of hiring private companies to fight wars - it appears as if norms of the society have simply become a reflection of the norms of the market. Under such a state of affairs, certain things that we generally would not like to treat as commodities have come to be considered as instruments of profit and monetary benefit. Additionally, the extent to which economics as a subject has enlarged its scope of enquiry and applied its modes of analysis to aspects of society previously studied by other areas such as anthropology, sociology and so on has further accentuated the commercialization of norms, so to speak. This is best exemplified by the widespread use of gift-cards for shopping, an idea that has its origin in economists' view that rational individuals understand their preferences the best and those who are planning to gift might as well give cash so as to help maximize the recipient's utility. Such an idea, although arising from logical economic precepts, nevertheless betrays the traditional sentiment that gift giving is an exercise in thoughtfulness and an outward expression of the relationship rather than just an act facilitating consumption. In a similar vein, the issue of investors being able to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages is situated at the confluence of the encroachment of market thinking upon traditional, non-market norms as well as the expansive and imperialistic role of economic analysis. It is now useful to examine in brief a certain case that can serve as the starting point of our argument.

     Consider the controversial and highly publicized lawsuit Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. In 1992, an elderly lady by the name of Stella Liebeck spilled coffee she purchased from a McDonald's drive-through on herself and suffered from excruciating third-degree burns in many parts of her body. In due course after receiving emergency treatments and skin grafting, she approached the fast-food giant for obtaining coverage for her medical expenses. The company rejected these and further requests outright and the matter had to be settled by the court. Liebeck was awarded up to a seven figure sum in damages and though it was settled for a significantly lesser amount in confidentiality between the two parties, the case proved to be a watershed in the debate over tort reforms in the United States. On the one hand, there were those who argued that the lawsuit set a precedent for frivolous litigation where individuals could sue companies for injuries or harm under conditions where there was little or no legal merit. Simultaneously, there were those who contended that such types of litigation were necessary to keep corporate greed and malpractices under check. In our case, for the sake of argument, imagine that a firm is floated by a group of investors who decide that given the precedent set by The Hot Coffee Lawsuit, there is a great deal of money to be made from frivolous litigations. They design mechanisms where people who feel they have been harmed or wronged by some company can send in their grievances. After some legal research, the investors decide whether or not a litigation is worth pursuing. If indeed a particular legal action is worth the effort, they fund the entire process and enter into a contract with the aggrieved customer to split the share of the damages in the event of a win. The question now is whether we as citizens have reasons for some sort of discomfiture, and if so, on what grounds.

     At first glance, it may appear that there is nothing particularly disconcerting about the arrangement between the investors and the disgruntled customers. According to the principles of competitive markets, two parties here have engaged in a mutually advantageous transaction without making someone else worse off, a condition known in the decision sciences as 'pareto improvement'. More importantly, economic reasoning suggests that such transactions improve societal well-being as a whole and this is what economists mean when they claim that competitive markets allocate goods efficiently. In other words, when people engage in mutually beneficial trades, markets allocate goods to those who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay. The fact that a dissatisfied customer strikes a deal with an investor for a share of the damages in return for funding the legal procedure suggests that both the parties are better off, along with the society as a whole. Of course, for argument's sake, it is assumed here that the defendant, whichever the company, would be worse-off regardless of whether or not the plaintiff reached a deal with the investors. The latter, presumably risk-loving individuals who in the spirit of the insurance business have decided to fund numerous lawsuits of different natures so as to maximize the chances of success, are better off since they would not have embarked on this venture otherwise. Similarly, by sharing the potential settlement with the investors, the plaintiff gets access to funding for the legal procedure thereby saving up on costs. Yet, this line of thinking implicitly suggests that the good, whatever it may be, when used in a commercial transaction does not get altered with regard to its character.

     Unlike standard commodities or services such as automobiles or haircuts, what is being exchanged in our case is a different kind of good: justice, as dispensed by the courts. Indeed, for us to understand why justice should not be treated as a standard commodity, we need to examine our conception of a reasonable justice system and how the pact made by the investors and plaintiffs corrupts the judiciary and its ideals in many ways. Firstly, it is contended that the judiciary's primary role is in the dispensation of justice and not in the granting of claims or settlements. The latter is simply a mechanism to further 'enhance' the justice dispensed and by itself does not lay claim to any merit. However, the very nature of many frivolous lawsuits are that they are filed assuming that justice is equivalent to receiving a monetary windfall. This is contended to be a wrong attitude towards justice as an ideal since it degrades it and equates it with other base commodities in the market place. Secondly, the plaintiff, whoever it may be, must not view the judiciary simply as a means to accrue monetary benefit for doing so otherwise would be to corrupt the justice system. In effect, those with such an intention would perceive the judiciary as a mechanism for gambling and landing windfall gains. In a similar vein, the investors, when engaging in the funding of legal procedures, render the plaintiffs as potential lottery tickets and thereby turns the judiciary into a source of funding for the prize-money. Therefore, if we as citizens seek to preserve the integrity and respect of the judiciary, we should be aware that allowing investors to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages can corrupt and degrade our cherished ideals of the justice system, and turn it into an instrument of private gain rather than a source of public good.

     Free-market advocates may grudgingly concede to the arguments of corruption to a public institution but may not be convinced that there are sound utilitarian reasons for opposing the deal between investors and plaintiffs. But, it is difficult to hold such a position since there are many reasons why such a pact should be regulated, if not opposed entirely. For one, financing many a frivolous litigation means that there will be an excess of unwarranted legal cases circulating within the judicial system. This might result in the devotion of time and resources to lawsuits that do not deserve our judiciary's attention and more importantly, it may crowd out files that deservedly require time and consideration with regard to dispensing justice. Such a situation is certainly foreseeable in developing countries like India where the population is high and the judiciary cannot keep up with the demands of citizenry. Secondly, it may put undue pressure on owners and those heading businesses to be alert for people committing 'mishaps' in their premises. For instance, say a KFC franchise owner is following all the systems in place and assuming that there are no faults, a customer still manages to 'find' insects or some other unwanted items in the food and decides to file a lawsuit. No doubt these frivolous litigations will make business owners more alert in how they serve their customers but for honest businessmen who are interested in a day's work for a day's profit, such lawsuits can be damaging, both financially and emotionally. In this sense, the nefarious pact between investors and potential plaintiffs can harm entrepreneurial spirit of the nation in a myriad of ways.

     Last but not the least, it is conceivable that given the way modern finance and its allied disciplines and institutions have developed, funding of legal actions in exchange for a share of the damages will be scaled up and made vastly complicated by the use of financial instruments and securitization. No doubt this will become a massive industry the way mortgages and student loans have become fodder for giant banks, pension funds and insurance companies. The global financial system will soon begin to allocate much needed capital into sectors such as this rather than areas where essential services are provided or tangible goods are manufactured. Employment generation will be sacrificed for getting a share of returns from customers who have slipped in the wash area in Starbucks or purposely stuffed in an insect in their Mc Donald's burger. Furthermore, in the event that such kinds of investing become commonplace, it is possible that even more frivolous and dastardly types of financing and profit generation may crop up in different parts the economy and given that our regulators have limited resources and cannot comprehensively review every single sector of the system, we may well be in for many unforeseeable crises in the future. Indeed, we must certainly do away with Alan Greenspan's 'conceptual framework for interpreting reality' for it may very well lead us on to our next Great Recession. What we need is effective regulation that safeguards the integrity of our public institutions without necessarily destroying the potential for Schumpeter's 'Creative Destruction' or the general entrepreneurial spirit of the economy. Yet, at the same time, investors such as those trying to fund legal actions in exchange for returns should be regulated, if not completely barred from carrying out their activities by the iron hand of the regulatory authorities of the nation.

[Qn. 5, General Paper II, September 2010, Examination Fellowship, All Souls College]

A Spark of Madness

The unexpected and unpleasant deaths of renowned artists in faraway lands prove a rather difficult emotion to manage. For one, the idea of 'mourning' in any genuine sense feels slightly disconcerting given that one has never made acquaintance with these individuals, let alone see them in flesh. Yet, through their works, remarkable artists of a wide variety seem to have become an integral part of our psyche and the way we relate to the world around us, so much so that sometimes, we may never know where they end and where we begin. Word by word and page by page, writers weave narratives that delve within and plumb our depths, allowing us to reflect on sentiments essential for our contentment; sentiments that may have been buried by the pressures of the daily normal. Film-makers inspire awe and wonderment at mere being and at the same time, force us to shudder and tremble at the prospect of existence in an incomprehensible and amoral universe. In other words, whatever may be their chosen craft and wherever and whenever they may be or may have been, artists are, to enlarge Percy Shelley's perspective, "the unacknowledged legislators of the world". They give civilization the raison d'etre and the most sublime ones convey to us, in a very deep and ethereal sense, what it is to be human and to be alive. But, as I write these words, the world laments the loss of one such artist, a force of nature whose performances on screen made audiences around the world roar with laughter as well as shed many a tear. A legislator of the turbulent currents of life, he ensured that the chaos and torment within gave birth to, as Friedrich Nietzsche would have it, many a "dancing star". Robin Williams, loved by children and adults alike, was found dead in his home in a suspected case of suicide by asphyxiation. The details do not matter much for they point to a devious demon lurking in the corners of the darkest alleyways within some of our minds.

      Perhaps I must first admit that I am not an expert in mental illnesses. Given the diverse range of approaches and understandings about these topics, one simply does not know which framework best to employ while addressing a particular issue. Is it Freud's Psychoanalaysis or Jung's Analytical Psychology? Or is it some version of occultism addressing the spirit? There are too many perspectives to get around. Still, as a general rule of thumb and as someone who has faith in the philosophical and institutional edifice governing scientific enquiry, I am inclined to believe in the current consensus which suggests that mental illnesses are, for the most part, manifestations of complications within the physical body. It could be that there is something wrong with neurotransmitters and the standard of communication between synapses in the brain; it could be that some aspect of the environment caused a certain part of the genetic code to unfurl and unleash a series of chain reactions that resulted in some untoward episode, or it could be that the particular endocrine system is simply not optimized to function within the body in its entirety. Whatever the reasons may be, depression, schizophrenia and most other illnesses seem to have a physical component that needs to be treated and it would certainly help if some psychological counseling is also given for added support. Indeed, a combination of these would, in many cases, avert possible suicides and tragic deaths. But to this day, mental illness is such a taboo in many societies that large scale initiatives are necessary to enlighten people regarding its 'normality' and to treat it just like one would treat a physical illness. One can only imagine the number of lives improved or even saved in a given year if people were to take their mental health seriously and visit a certified professional when circumstances call for it. Moreover, if we are willing to encourage those who we think need psychological or psychiatric counseling, it would be equivalent to us prodding someone to visit a general physician in case they had a dreadful headache. Yet sometimes, when those around us are not equipped to recognize our need to be oriented to a safer path and when we ourselves are blinded by the darkness of our own mental episodes, life crashes against the jagged edges of the mind's abyss. Either it meets a tragic and pitiful end, or, there is a light and a spark of madness.

     You would think that I am referring to the kind of insanity witnessed in the forlorn hallways of asylums and sanitariums, when patients are being shifted from wafer thin mattresses to shock therapy rooms, screaming and convulsing away the remnants of their senses. Certainly, they too are the tragic victims of the treacherous machinations of life but I do not wish to include them in my narrative, for I do not have first hand experience of that state of mind. The spark of madness that I speak of here encompasses the tempestuous birth of creative energy as well as the reservoir it engenders that helps fuel and sustain the artist. Indeed, this genesis becomes the first instance when the individual truly understands the redeeming role of art in life and how the continuous engagement in the creative process is essential for, if it is not too brash of me to suggest, survival at large. Of course, as I mentioned previously, were this to happen in some other circumstances to a person of a  different constitution, it would probably result in tragedy. For the artist however, like a volcano that erupts once in a century, madness emerges somewhere along the course of life and depending on the individual's proclivities and sensibilities, he or she sees it either as a gift or a curse. But madness does not judge and it does not distinguish between those who adore it and those who detest it. Its sway over the artist is simply too strong for it to be regulated in any reasonable manner. One may attempt to walk away from it and fervently hope for a life prescribed in normality, and wish for the ashes and debris to settle down once and for all. Or, one can resign in patience to one's fate and choose to believe that the spark of madness is a new beginning to celebrated, a gift bestowed by the forces of the universe to engage in poesis, the act of creating something from nothing; a chance to be Godlike.

     Life is of course mired in contradictions and one would be mistaken in thinking that the artist had it any other way. The very pursuit that sustains life also becomes a seething scimitar dangling over the neck, one whose workings appear to be beyond anyone's immediate reckoning. Indeed, the price for creating art is exacting and exceeding since it requires, consciously or unconsciously, that the artist remains on the edge - between sanity and lunacy, intimacy and aloofness, turmoil and violence, love and loneliness, life and death. Put differently, the artist must embrace chaos because without it, the desire to create art in its most exalted and redeeming state simply becomes a wish to be made on sand. If these musings appear dubious, a cursory glance at the list of the most influential painters in Europe will reveal a record of psychologically disturbed geniuses whose works could have never come about had they enjoyed warm and peaceful private lives. The most poignant and well known example is Vincent van Gogh, the troubled and vituperative Dutchman who committed suicide by aiming a shotgun at his chest. Beyond doubt, one can find the state of his mind clearly reflected in his paintings. Rather than capture the essence of the form in its truest sense, he transposed his inner-life on to the object and made it appear to us as it appeared to him, in his own unique and idiosyncratic sense. Thus, Van Gogh's Chair is not just a chair but his very own, one that embodied the vicissitudes of relationships as well as the overwhelming loneliness that plagued him throughout his life. More examples are abound of poets, writers, performers and musicians of all sorts who found recourse in their creative craft and was yet decimated by its source later. Indeed, it seems quite evident to me that many of them would have known reasonably well that the bittersweet golden nectar that they all drew inspiration and energy from could one day turn soot black and kill them from the inside. Nevertheless, as irrational as it may seem, it is not the dread of succumbing to the demons within nor is it the prospect of leaving behind a childless and barren home that instils the most disquiet in an artist's heart. Rather, it is losing touch with that genesis and reservoir of creativity, that spark of madness. 

      Death is tragic since it signifies the end of a certain combination of matter that may, for all we know, never resume the same configuration and yield the same persona for all of eternity. Life too assumes tragic proportions when we recognize that all of its hopes and rewards do not compensate for the pain and infamy of death. Yet, given this pessimistic view of the spirit of the universe, there is glory to be found in art and consequently, there are artists whom we can label as glorious - artists who have survived the primal explosion of madness; artists who have made a reservoir of vitality out of pain and suffering; artists who have attained transcendence by escaping their boundaries and limitations into worlds and characters they have created for themselves; artists who have touched the lives of others and help convey the many facets of humanity, and last but not the least, artists who have had demons lurking in their minds and succumbed to their deviousness, and in the while, have created beauty and majesty for all of the world to experience. Robin Williams, it appears to me, was all these and more. He once said, "You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it". He may have lost his life in trying to channelize and retain that spark but for the rest of the world, he is and will always be, an artist who has attained glory.

send her love to me

the world is cold when the heart is dry
every moment stings with the void of life
there must be a way to survive each day
it is to let love bloom and resist its fray

pray the blue sky clasps the lonely cloud
drifting hither and tither, beyond and yond
roaming and roving to alleviate the curse
of an unfulfilled wish to be taken to the hearse

the nature of humans is mysterious in essence
from blightful senility to youthful adolescence
so it is agreed that love is never to be logical
as it tramples reason and goes beyond national

wisdom suggests that two souls will unite
in a love tinged friendship that is hard to find
where conversations flow with jest and ease
and the minds are equal for the growth of each

but tragedy it is when words were exchanged
in meetings composed of seconds and restraint
for the woman i seek is still an obscure mystery
and it seems that all this was never meant to be

so i pour out my lamentations with a broken pen
on a sheet of paper that will never feel her scent
at a time of the day when rains sweep the drains
in a world that is drenched in dismay and grey

(For the sake of clarification, this poem is written about a girl in Australia who studies Law and Economics.)

Wasting My Time

Sweat beads and briefcase
Fabrics to measure and sell
Not academic

Snake

In the night I search for love,
Gun in hand and sword above,
Stars and stripes hide the veil, 
God is here behind the wheel. 

Pretty things they are not far,
Little girls they know the czar,
Daddy's girl knows the drill,
Daddy's girl fears the will.

I'll take you flying in the dark,
To hell and back in my car,
Shut your mouth and the door,
Wrap my steel with your blow.

Hold it tight and chew it hard,
Rub these desires until they scar,
All your branches, all your leaves,
All your future, all your dreams.

Open your mouth and let it go,
Drop your clothes for my show,
Turn around and clench the seat,
Close your eyes and feel the heat.

Don't you question who I am,
Working harder for this land,
Pledged my life to serve and kill,
Nation and daughter at my will.

Girl if you think that I am an evil man,
Make your thoughts scarce and scant,
For I will haunt you in your waking life,
And my eyes will pierce you like a knife.

The time has come for me to end,
A perfect night with my little friend,
Wipe away those tears pretty child,
And act as if you were all alone tonight.

Let's go back home without a weep,
It's twelve at night and ma is asleep,
Into your room to tuck you to bed,
To wake up early, alive and dead.