There may be occasions when mild hypocrisy is cloaked up in nice words or even sweet lies to make it acceptable or tolerable to the recipient. Any discerning recipient may not be elated by it, but he may tolerate it giving the benefit of doubt or by the generosity of his amiable mind.
But then there are occasions when rank hypocrisy is dished out totally arrogantly or combatively with no intention of making it amicable or acceptable. This is one of those moments with regard to Dominic Cummings action in going all the way from Downing Street, London to an isolated firm in County Durham on the totally unfounded presumption that his wife may be ill with coronavirus or he may be ill with coronavirus or his four-year old child may be ill. Nobody had been ill with anything; Cummings’ ‘may be ill’ are all made up and this narrative makes a good alibi.
It should be realised that he is not the only parent in the whole country with a child. There are millions of parents with children at various ages in much more difficult situations. There are families in financial hardship, close family members hospitalised or passed away etc – and they all needed to go to some other place. But they adhered to the exhortations of the government to “stay at home, save NHS, save life”! If they would have realised that government advice was just a good counsel with lots of allowable exceptions, getaways, loopholes, ifs and buts etc, then people would have acted entirely differently.
Cummings then said that he made a detour of over 30 miles ‘to test if his eyesight is OK!’ to drive to London. The question is, couldn’t his wife drive if he had lost his sight entirely in that fictitious illness? Why does he need to drive 30 miles to a beauty spot on the other side of his route to London? His eyesight was obviously alright to allow him to drive to London. Now, how often does he take such ‘eye-tests’ each day during the lockdown period while living in London to allow him to work?
But the most telling and provocative mind-set came out when he said, “I don’t care what people think” about this action (of going to Durham during the lockdown period). This is the height of arrogance, revolting arrogance. People have made enormous sacrifices, endured tremendous hardships all in the good faith of ‘we are all in it together’. But then this guy, who created the slogans of ‘stay at home, save NHS, save life’, is showing two fingers to the common people, went off to have a good break in the seclusion of a farm house, all on the false pretence of ‘may be ill’.
It is the most arrogant way of saying, there is one rule for the powerful and another rule for the vassals and plebs. The powerful effectively is saying, “Do what I say, not what I do”. This is perfect recipe for social breakdown.
If Cummings’ action is justified, as Johnson is saying, that Cummings acted for the best interests of his child giving him safety and security (which the child did not need as after 14 days holiday, they all came back to London refreshed), then if a man loses his job, would he be justified to rob a bank as he needs to give his child food and shelter? Would a man be justified to snatch medicines from a pharmacy to give to his sick children or parents? Anarchy is the recipe the present prime minister is advocating.
Boris Johnson justified Cummings’ action, which is not surprising. It may be called ‘criminal fraternity’. Boris Johnson justified his own actions of lies and deceits in the EU referendum to snatch his victory. He and his advisor, Dominic Cummings, had always had very lose connection with truth, honesty, decency and fairness. In fact, they have no connections at all. This is going to cause enormous long-lasting damage to the very fabric of this society, which had inculcated these virtues over the centuries.
The reality is considered to be the state of a thing or situation, not a notional idea or perception, that is unambiguous or obvious at a specific space and time. The state of reality is vivid, transparent and beyond dispute. A ‘real’ thing is there, right in front of the eyes of the viewer to observe with full consciousness. But, is reality as ‘real’ as it is claimed to be? Is there no illusion in viewing or observing something that is ‘real’?
Nearly a century ago (1930 to be precise), Tagore, ‘the poet with the head of a scientist’, and Einstein, ‘the scientist with the head of a poet’, debated (and some would say, clashed) on the nature of reality at Einstein’s home outside Berlin. Einstein held the notion of reality that was vivid, transparent, visible, sort of ‘moon was there, whether one looked at it or not’, ‘a beauty was there, whether one observed it or not’. Reality arises from physical presence that cannot be denied or disputed.
On the other hand, Tagore held the view that reality of all physical objects, truth, beauty and so forth was dependent on human consciousness. Without human consciousness, the reality of anything was incoherent and irrelevant. He maintained that this world was a human world – the scientific view of it was also that of a scientific man. Therefore, the world apart from us does not exist, it is a subjective world, depending for its reality upon our consciousness.
Reality is not always ‘real’ as we view it; it can deceive our perception, our senses and consciousness or sense of reality may be partial or incomplete. Let us look at the Figure given below. The light from a distant star can be bent by the gravitational field of the Sun before it reaches us and then we view the position of the star at its ‘apparent position’. Of course, with scientific investigation, taking other parameters into consideration, the ‘real’ position of the star can be accurately determined. But to a common man, the ‘apparent position’ is the ‘real’ position of the star, he can point it out in the sky with his own fingers and that is the reality for him!
The moon is the nearest celestial body from earth. Even then, what we see or do not see of the moon may not be the real thing. For example, we may not see the moon due to cloud cover, but that does not mean the moon is not there in the sky. In Islam, religious events are fixed by the sight of the moon and the lack of sight of moon does not mean that the moon is not there in reality. That illusion of absence is taken as a substitute for reality. The light we get from our nearest star, beyond sun, comes to us four years after it had been emitted. In other words, our reality is four years behind the present time. We can get light or radiation from a star or a galaxy some 100 million or 200 million or 1000 million light years from us and during that time that star or galaxy may have died or disappeared. So, our reality of the existence of that star could be totally out of place.
The nearer an object is from us, the more accurate is our perception of the reality of that object. However, on the miniscule scale of atomic and sub-atomic realm, i.e. quantum field, our reality takes another knock. In there, particles like electrons, quarks etc take on dual role of particles and waves – which one at which point no one knows. An electron whizzes around the nucleus of an atom as waves, but when an energy is given to it or taken away from it, it behaves like a particle. Only the act of observation can determine the true nature or the reality of the electron. In quantum mechanics, it is axiomatic that only in the act of measurement does an electron become real. An unobserved electron is unreal (Copenhagen interpretation).
However, an observed electron does not behave exactly the same way in various circumstances. A concrete example is the double slit experiment when electrons are fired one at a time and interference pattern is observed on the screen due to wave nature of electrons. Now, if a detector is placed to detect which slit the electron is going through, the interference pattern disappears. If the detector is then switched off, leaving all other arrangements intact, the interference pattern reappears. It is, as if, the electron does not like to be detected which way it is going. In other words, the act of observation modifies the outcome. Thus, the act of observation in this instance does not give the reality; rather the very act of observation changes the outcome of the reality.
The view of reality in the cosmological scale may be somewhat misplaced, as objects may not be exactly where they apparently appear to be. Also, in the ultra-small sub-atomic fields, objects cannot be assigned any particular positions based on physical principles. Only an act of observation may offer the object a specific position and that may be construed as the reality. But strangely that act of observation may change the otherwise reality!
Over the centuries and millennia, people had been narrating different ‘real’ stories. Moses, the prophet of Judaism, saw a bush-fire in the corn field right in front of his eyes and when he went nearer, that bush-fire disappeared, he saw nothing was burnt and received the God’s command not to approach it any further. To him, the event was vivid and real (although we now know that he witnessed a mirage). To George W Bush, the command from God to invade Iraq was real (unless he made it up). To millions of fanatic religious people, the existence of God or Allah or Yahweh is absolute and real; heaven and hell are real! It is the state of their mind that dictates reality.
Thus, there does not seem to be a universal notion or narrative of a reality that is true to everyone at every occasion. Reality seems to be subjective, depending on individual’s state of mind or consciousness, as Tagore had asserted. What is real, vivid and utterly true to someone may be totally unrealistic, utterly non-sensical to another person with a different state. Reality can thus be an illusory notion.
In an effort to counter allegations of incompetence in handling COVID-19 pandemic, Donald Trump has again resorted to lies, deception and misinformation. This is typical of this administration’s response to any issue of significance.
In early January 2020, when COVID-19 (a strain of coronavirus) was wreaking havoc in Wuhan, China and despite country’s best efforts in locking down the city, the virus did spread to other parts of China as well as to South Korea, Donald Trump blamed China for not tackling the problem efficiently and was bragging in mid-Feb that America was well prepared to face this virus and there was nothing to worry about. He even dismissed coronavirus as nothing more than a common flu infection at the end of February and asked people to have common flu precaution.
Then COVID-19 pandemic attacked New York city from early March with all its viciousness. Thousands of New Yorkers started showing symptoms from early March and the death rate started to climb from early March. Donald Trump blamed the Mayor of New York for not taking adequate precautions in time to tackle the problem! Under relentless pressure from various states, he imposed lockdown from 23 March. But that was probably too late.
Now to deflect the public opinion from his disastrous handling of the pandemic issue, he started blaming China for this virus. He said a few weeks ago that he has evidence that the virus could have originated in a Chinese laboratory, but he declined to give any further evidence. Then Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State (and sycophant-in-chief), took up the issue and said on Sunday, 3 May 2020 that there was “a significant amount of evidence” that the coronavirus had emerged from a Chinese laboratory. But US intelligence agencies concluded that it was not a man-made virus. A German spy agency (BND) casts doubt on the American accusation that the virus, COVID-19, originated in a Chinese laboratory. In fact, the German intelligence report prepared for the German Defence Minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, concluded that the U.S. accusations were a deliberate attempt to divert public attention away from President Donald Trump’s “own failures”. The five nations’ joint spy agency representing US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would not support Pompeo’s claim. Pompeo’s response was typical of a sycophant’s mantra that “whatever the master says, the sycophant says it exaggerated hundred times!”
Doesn’t Pompeo’s present accusation of “a significant amount of evidence” bear a striking resemblance to Colin Powell’s, the then Secretary of State under George W Bush, accusation in March 2003 that “Iraq’s behaviour shows that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction?” Colin Powell started his address at the UN Security Council in Feb 2003 with solemn assertion, “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”. What a monumental lie and deception! No weapons of mass destruction, no chemical weapon of any description, no links of Saddam Hussein’s government with al-Qaeda etc had ever been found. George W Bush, Colin Powell and their cabal orchestrated lies and deceits to carry out their heinous crime of removing Saddam Hussein and put their hands-on Iraqi oil wealth.
The extreme right-wing administration of Donald Trump is mindful of America’s gradual economic decline and China’s rapid rise to the top position in the world economy. There is a conspiracy theory that is going around now that America considers the only way this trend can be reversed is by decimating China’s economy. How best can it be done other than implanting a vial of coronavirus in the economic powerhouse of China – Wuhan city? This virus would then spread to other towns and cities in China and Chinese economy would be devastated and America would achieve its objectives.
But what Trump’s blockheaded strategists failed to appreciate was that the virus could not be confined to China alone; it would savage China as well as other parts of the world. As it happens, within a couple of months, the virus came back to attack America itself and killed already over 80,000 people and rising. This death toll is nearly 16 times higher than China’s, although Chinese population is more than 3.5 times of that of America. So, pro rata America’s fatality is more than 50 times higher than that of China!
Donald Trump is desperate to start American economy after the lockdown, as election is coming within the next six months. Due to lockdown, more than 25million Americans (over 15% of the workforce) have already become unemployed and many of them may become permanently unemployed. American GDP is likely to shrink by around 15%, which is simply staggering. The death toll from COVID-19 is nearly 2,000 per day and so within another 10 to 12 days, the tally would exceed the 100,000 mark! With such a dire situation, Donald Trump is desperate to shift the blame to China.
If America can make the Chinese crime of making this virus stick, it stands to achieve a number of well-prized objectives all in one go. Firstly, Donald Trump’s awful incompetence and chaotic response to this pandemic will be forgotten by the people due to pent-up anger and the demand for reparation from China. Secondly, the reparation from China can easily be extracted as China has more than trillion-dollar investment in America’s treasury bonds. American government can easily freeze that asset under the excuse of extracting reparation and nothing the Chinese government can do to avert it. Thirdly, Trump election victory would be well assured as he can dish out tens of billions of dollars, snatched from China, to the affected and/or unemployed people. Fourthly, America can flash around the whole world that China is the culprit for this virus, which caused so much pain and suffering to almost every nation of the world. This will irreparably damage China’s standing in the world and economic relations with other nations and thereby secure America’s future prospect as the economic superpower.
All of these favourable outcomes depend on one key issue that China got to be shown that it was the originator of this virus. So, it is highly probable that America will go all-out for it. After all, America is renowned for all sorts lies, deception, vicious propaganda, military adventure and invasion, regime changes, pre-emptive strikes and so forth, all for their selfish interests.
But bitten by the Iraqi debacle and blatant falsehood, American spy agency wanted to clean-up its act and gave an honest verdict that the virus was not man-made. After all, whether the virus containing the embedded gene is naturally evolved or man-made can be found out from the genome sequence data of SARS-CoV-2. Already Gene Laboratories found that SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) and related viruses were not made in a laboratory or engineered.
So, the opportunity for lying and deceiving on this virus is almost non-existent. But the Trump administration, with very limited technical knowledge and the medical knowledge extending to prescribing people to ingest or inhale disinfectants to cure COVID-19 infection, is completely unaware of genetic advances and thought that by doubling up their lies and publicity, they can change day into night!
In the most unlikely event if the virus was man-made, then who is to say that it was not made by America herself and transported to Wuhan? Finding the man-made virus in China does not necessarily mean that it was made in China. Implanting a small amount of infectious virus in a place like Wuhan is a child’s play for American spies. All major powers have chemical, biological and radiological weapons and laboratories to make weapons to attack enemies. Russia killed Sergei Skripal and poisoned his daughter with a Novichok nerve agent in England in 2018 by importing the nerve agent from Moscow. So, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that America would have implanted the virus in China to ensure Donald Trump’s election victory, make ‘America great again’ and destroy China (like Iraq) all in one go! But he should know that China is no Iraq!
Last week when I wrote about a single mosque in Toronto using four loudspeakers to declare “Allah is the Greatest” and that there is “No God, but Allah.” I thought it was the case of one mosque, a few zealots and their formerly communist councillor investing in her Muslim vote bank.
I was wrong. Within days, dozens of mosques across the country deployed loudspeakers, ostensibly to soothe the loneliness of Muslims because of the lockdown, but what critics may rightly claim could be laying the foundations to establish what are predominantly Muslim neighbourhoods, which we see in Paris, Amsterdam and cities in Britain and Germany.
The most blatant illustration of the power some voices in the Muslim community have over our municipal politicians was demonstrated in Mississauga, where Mayor Bonnie Crombie rejected the advice of her top administrators, and in a drive-by vote managed to pass a unanimous resolution amending the city noise bylaw that will legalize the blaring of loudspeakers at all Mississauga mosques.
When Mississauga councillors Sue McFadden and Ron Star on Wednesday sought to overturn the first vote and have a discussion, they were somehow persuaded by the mayor into changing their mind. The fact that critics of the loudspeakers have already been labelled racist and Islamophobic would scare the bravest amongst us.
If Crombie thought the affected people would simply roll over and hand the keys of city decision-making to the Mullahs of Mississauga, she was in for a surprise. The city known for its suburban subservience triggered a citizen’s revolt led by one person – Ram Subrahmanian, who announced a plan to launch a constitutional challenge against the change of Mississauga’s noise laws.
Subrahmanian, who is part of the Peel Region group ‘Keep Religion Out Of Peel Region Schools (KROOPS)’, also managed to receive around $120,000 for this cause through a Facebook page. As of Wednesday, Subrahmanian appears to have recruited over 6,000 people, each committing to donate around $45 for the court battle was joined by Muslim Canadian Congress spokesperson Munir Pervaiz, who cited many Islamic scholars who have denounced the use of loudspeakers in mosques as against the spirit of Islam.
Subrahmanian told me that lawyers are preparing to seek a constitutional challenge in the Ontario Courts of Justice. “This is not about religion or being against Islam. This is about the separation of religion and state and preventing any group trying to thrust their religion on others via loudspeakers that blare religious messages into the privacy of homes,” he said.
So, what exactly is the Islamic call to prayer? Here is the English translation:
Allahu Akbar (“Allah is greatest,” four times) I testify that there is no God, but Allah (twice) I testify that Mohammed is God’s Prophet (twice) Come to prayer (twice) Come to salvation (twice) Allahu Akbar (twice) There is no God, but Allah (twice)
Cities across Europe and in India (home to the world’s second-largest population) have taken measures to ban the loudspeaker.
In Germany, a non-Muslim couple succeeded in banning a mosque from broadcasting its Friday midday call to prayer by loudspeaker.
Elsewhere, the Green Party mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, refused a mosque’s request for loudspeaker call to prayer, saying that “given advances in technology, from alarms to apps, it was not necessary to use loudspeakers to remind the faithful when to pray.”
In India courts have ruled against the use of loudspeakers on mosque minarets, but the faithful continue to defy the laws.
The fact is that for 1,400 years, through the conflicts of Islam’s birth in the 7th century to the “golden era” of Andalusia and Baghdad (11th to 14th centuries), Islam’s call to prayer was never accentuated to increase the decibel noise.
According to Pervaiz, the loudspeaker has little to do with Islam and everything to do with Islamism — the use of Islam for political purposes.
Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
We are all aware of, indeed seriously concerned about, the climate change and global warming. The large majority of scientists – environmentalists, climatologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, geochemists, oceanographers and experts of hosts of associated disciplines – as well as overwhelming proportion of human population unanimously hold the view that significant climate change is indeed taking place and that is all due to human activities. But then a small but powerful section of the population, mostly in America, reject this contention and assign changes to just natural activities. Obviously, these people have vested interests in deflecting away human activities.
It is blatantly obvious that human activities are the root causes of climate change. Of course, nature may be reacting to adverse conditions created by human beings, but the initial cause is human activity. One may ask, why is it that earth is reacting so disastrously over the last few decades when it existed in stable conditions for millions of years? The answer is undoubtedly ‘WE ARE’, there are too many of ‘US’ – human beings on the surface of the earth demanding, exploiting and extracting earth’s resources ruthlessly without any regard to its stability and sustainability.
Some 200 years ago or even 100 years ago we were doing what we are doing now – spewing out carbon dioxide and other global warming gases into the atmosphere – but that did not change climatic conditions irreversibly, because not enough of us had been doing the abusive actions. But now more than 7,500 million of us abusing the earth and probably pushed the earth to the threshold or beyond its sustainability.
The large human population of the present day is causing the problems. The United Nations’ estimation of human population from 1050 to 2017 is shown in Figure 1, where the past numbers had been compiled from human records and best estimate values. At no time until 1850 the global human population exceeded 1.0 billion. Around 1750, when Industrial Revolution took place, the Western World started using coal and other natural resources to improve living conditions and consequently the population started to grow significantly. From that time on, not only the standards of living started to improve but also better hygiene and improved medical sciences managed to bring down the death rate and thereby help increase population growth. At the moment the global population is 7.5 billion and growing at the rate of 80 million every year and this number is also growing! Since 1970, the global population had gone up by two-fold!
In 1960s and 1970s there were intense debates about the sustainability of the world population beyond about 3.5 billion, particularly with regard to food production. As estimated at that time that in about 12 to 15 years the population would grow by more than a billion (about 30% of the prevailing population). If so, could the food production be increased by about 30% in that time scale? The global population had been going up at that rate ever since despite all the measures taken to curtail it.
As the population grows, there are extra demands for housing and other socio-economic facilities and consequent shrinkage of arable land. But human ingenuity prevailed – multiple crop production, better yielding crop, crop rotation, disease resistant seeds and now GM crop etc – had improved food production. In fact, food production had been improved so much that food supply for the population is no longer an issue. But that had created more serious problems, particularly environmental problems, which need to be tackled.
The United Nations have also produced a population growth projection for the years 1950 to 2100, as shown in Figure 2. Many factors affect population growth and incorporating various assumptions in those factors produce widely varying outcomes. The middle thick green line is the outcome based on best estimate values, whereas the top and bottom lines are those with 95% level of confidence in various assumptions. If corrective actions such as proper family planning, better education and social responsibility of the population etc. are taken, the population growth could be limited to 9.6 billion in 2100, whereas unbridled growth will show a figure of 13.6 billion! The difference between two extremes in population numbers in 2100 is about 4 billion, more than 50% of the present population! That is an alarming prospect indeed!
Population distribution is not uniform round the world, as shown in Figure 3. At the moment over 60% (4.6 billion) of world population is in Asia and Africa constitutes 1.4 billion (less than 20%). But by 2100 the Asian population may remain same or even decline, whereas African population will shoot up to 4.4 billion, more than three times of the present population. This drastic increase will place enormous burden on the continent and may even lead to violent responses, unprecedented population migration to other continents etc. This situation will arise on top of ensuing environmental deterioration – global warming, extreme weather conditions etc.
It is interesting to note that China’s present population of over 1.42 billion would come down to about 1.06 billion by 2100, whereas India’s population would grow from 1.35 billion to 1.46 billion in the same time scale, as shown in Figure 4. China’s drastic reduction in population is due to lower fertility rates which arise due to older population group. China had imposed two-child policy right from its inception and gradually it is bearing fruit.
As already mentioned, population growth is multifactorial. But a very important factor is the economic condition of the country. A run away population growth stunts the economic growth of the country and at the same time a low economic growth tends to encourage higher population growth. A family tends to produce more children in a poverty-stricken country so that the children can look after the parents at their old ages. Thus, population growth and poverty form a vicious circle. Examples are Pakistan and Nigeria where large population growths are anticipated. On the other hand, Bangladesh is the country which has broken out of this vicious circle.
Let us get back to the aforementioned theme that climate change is primarily due to the presence of vast population. Coal extraction and its use by limited number of people catering for one or two billion people in the Western World in the 18th or 19th century was not that damaging to the climate. But, as deprived population of the East as well as other decolonised countries’ population are striving to improve living standards from abysmal depths, demand for natural resources like coal, gas, oil as well as minerals have gone up exponentially and environmental degradation followed the suit.
Nature has an inbuilt mechanism of correcting itself when there is any deviation or offset from the norm, which is commonly known as negative feedback. If there is an increase in temperature in the summer, more water from the sea would evaporate and subsequent rain would cool down the area. There are lots of factors acting in opposite phase to the initial condition to stabilise the natural conditions and that is the negative feedback.
But there may be situations when moderate negative feedback condition could breakdown and violent response would ensue. If due to excessive increase in global temperature, arctic and Antarctic ice caps melt, then there would be no seasonal cold stream of water, no moderation of summer temperature etc. In some areas the temperature would become so high that there would be almost spontaneous fire – as in Australia, California and even in Siberia. Condensation would be restricted to limited areas giving large increase in rainfall – as in England now – causing unprecedented floods etc.
So, either we pull ourselves back from the precipice by limiting and then reversing the damage that had already been inflicted to the nature or let nature go berserk threatening the very existence of human life or for that matter any form of life on earth.