A case for shower curtains in Indian bathrooms

I've been travelling for the last handful of weeks and have been facing a small issue - wet ankles. 

Many Indian bathrooms aren't designed well enough to have a bath. There aren't dedicated bathing zones, clearly demarcated and separated from the rest of the areas so as to not leave the entire floor wet after taking a bath.

A usual Indian bathroom where the bathing area bleeds into the toilet and the wash-basin areas leaving the entire floor wet after someone takes a bath. 

The problem with a wet bathroom floor is a very practical one. It makes the entire floor slippery increasing the risk of accident and injury, but that's not why I'm complaining. I'm still young and have a relatively good sense of balance. My problem is post-bath, when I'm dressing myself, the act of wearing pants without them rubbing off the bathroom floor and getting wet becomes difficult. The hem of the pant almost always inevitably gets wet and you are left with cold ankles for at least a couple of hours till it dries off on its own.

This can easily be solved by introducing some sort of partition between the dry and wet zones of the bathroom. This can come in various forms, two easiest ones that come to my mind are either a glass partition or a simple shower curtain, any of them additionally paired with a sunk dedicated bathing area. Glass partitions and sunk bathing areas may not be always possible due to many practical constraints - space, money, etc, but a simple shower curtain rod and a plastic shower curtain can be easily added to any existing bathroom.

 

A simple space separator dividing the bathroom into dry and wet areas. An additional separator can be added between the toilet bowl and the bathing area to get more dry zones.

On baby injuries

Mrs. Kulkarni was playing with her 2-year-old niece today, and she (the niece) got hurt. The toddler immediately started crying, loud enough to grab the attention of everyone in the room. I could immediately see the guilt dawn upon Mrs. Kulkarni's face. It feels bad enough that a baby is hurt, feels worse knowing that you were involved in it (and may be partially/obliquely responsible for it) and then it feels worst seeing everyone look at you and probably judging you. 

From my perspective, I wasn't judging her at all. Babies are by themselves quite careless, very delicate and very quick to cry. Quite an awful combination. On top of that, them being cute doesn't help either. One look at them and you'd immediately want to pick them up and play with them. Despite being very careful around them, they'd find a way to hurt themselves. Accident-magnets.

I wasn't judging Mrs. Kulkarni, and I don't think anyone else in the room was either. You spend enough time with babies and you know that very rarely does the blame attach itself onto the adult involved, at least not directly. But, that didn't stop Mrs. Kulkarni's eye water up a bit when her niece started crying. 

It was all over in 2-3 mins, as soon as the baby was distracted with something else. It was interesting event though, and I thought I should note it down somewhere as a reminder to myself when in a similar situation in Mrs. Kulkarni's shoes

"Babies get hurt. It's fine. It's most probably not your fault. Most people in the room don't think it's your fault. The baby is almost definitely fine too and will stop crying soon. Don't worry."

On not being a guest anymore

It takes time to warm up to a new place and think of it as your own. 

I'm currently at my in-laws' place and my role here is mostly that of an NPC who exists merely as a recipient of service instead of a service provider/contributor. I would like to be the latter, but I haven't yet broken the social barrier that separates the two. The problem is social awkwardness (from both sides) and my lack of knowledge. 

Firstly, my in-laws are hesitant to treat me anything other than a guest - as a guest I am supposed to not "work" around the house, and secondly, I am hesitant to work in ways that don't align with their customs - what if I serve everyone (or even myself) some food and it's not the way they like, what if I clean a particular nook and rearrange things in the house in a particular way that they don't like, etc. The lack of knowledge is me not knowing how this house functions - where are the post-breakfast/lunch/dinner soiled plates kept, where are we to dump soiled clothes till they are eventually loaded up in the washing machine, what wash cycle is usually set on the machine, etc. I don't want to be seen hunting for these things in random drawers, and turning random dials on the washing machine or water purifier because it might be perceived rude - it's not "my" house after all.

It's been some two weeks, and only now am I finally participating in the house affairs. Starting out with small low-consequence tasks and decisions till both parties (me, and other members of this house) are well acclimated with each others' agency.

The only reason I want to note all of this down is because it might happen again, to me or to someone else, and it would be a good reminder that this is normal. Things take time, and that's fine. 

Brahmins in Buddhism

I recently came across these verses in the Mahabharata:

BORI CE: 12-035-018

अपि चाप्यत्र कौन्तेय मन्त्रो वेदेषु पठ्यते

वेदप्रमाणविहितं तं धर्मं प्रब्रवीमि ते

BORI CE: 12-035-019

अपेतं ब्राह्मणं वृत्ताद्यो हन्यादाततायिनम्

न तेन ब्रह्महा स स्यान्मन्युस्तं मन्युमृच्छति

Translation: O Kaunteya, there's a mantra in the Vedas. I describe to you the dharma that is approved by the Vedas. "If a Brahmin falls from his path and acts like an aggressor, killing him will not accrue the sins of being a Brahmin-slayer. This is [instead simply] seen as fury countering fury.

While brahmahatya (the killing of a Brahmana) was regarded as an extremely grave sin (see BORI CE: 1-149-007 for example), verses expressing similar sentiments to the one above occur elsewhere in the text as well (eg. BORI CE: 5-178-027). What makes these specific verses noteworthy is that they explicitly cite the Vedas as the original source. When I tried to look for a mention of this exact verse in the Vedas, all results in a preliminary google search pointed back to the Mahabharata itself.

There are, however, similar (not 'exactly same') verses found in other texts: For example, here's one from the Manusmriti, which also found as-is in Vishnu-Smriti 5:190-191

गुरुं वा बालवृद्धौ वा ब्राह्मणं वा बहुश्रुतम् ।

आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन् ॥

Ganganath Jha: Without hesitation one should strike an approaching desperado,—be he a preceptor, a child, or an aged man, or a highly learned Brāhmaṇa. (8-350).

A similar verse is also found in Padma Purāṇa, Sṛṣṭikhaṇḍa 48.56-57, and similarly, Śiva Purāṇa, Umāsaṃhitā 21.35. 

---

At this point, I'd given up my search for this verse in the Vedas as the thoughts mentioned in the verse are not that extraordinary. Interestingly though, during my search I stumbled upon Buddhist sources.

There's a verse in the Dhammapada that stands antagonistic to the views expressed in the verses above:

Na brāhmaṇassa pahareyya, nāssa muñcetha brāhmaṇo;
Dhī brāhmaṇassa hantāraṁ, tato dhī yassa muñcati.

Translation: One should not strike a Brahmin, nor should a Brahmin release [anger] upon him.
Shame on the slayer of a Brahmin, and greater shame on him who releases [anger in return].

There's apparently a verse in the Tibetan canon Udanavarga which talks of something similar:

གང་ཞིག་བྲམ་ཟེ་རྡེག་པ་བླུན་༎་སྐྲོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ངན་པས་༎་བྲམ་ཟེ་རྣམས་ལ་བརྡེག་མི་བྱ་༎་བྲམ་ཟེ་བསྐྲད་པར་མི་བྱའོ་༎

Translation: The fool who beats a Brahmin, and the wicked one who banishes him [is condemned]. One should not beat Brahmins, nor should one banish a Brahmin. 

I was quite surprised to see this. The Buddhist worldview towards Brahmins is much kinder than what I was initially led to believe. All my previous exposure to these topics came in the form of mainstream historiography which pits Buddhism against Brahmanism, the former made out to be revolutionary reformist attack on the orthodox rigidity of latter. In this regard, one of the articles about the Dhammapada that I came across highlight the fact that certain Buddhist texts (re)define the word "Brahmin" from 'something that one becomes by being born into a particular family/lineage' to 'something that one becomes by displaying certain virtuous traits' - compassion, patience, study, wisdom, etc. (ref. Dhammapada: 386 for example, keep in mind, Pali original "brāhmaṇa" is intentionally translated to "sage" in the neutral reformist reading). This, it says, is proof that Brahmanism had grown to be rigid enough that it restricted the much coveted priestly positions to a certain lineages only.

Now I'm not academically familiar with how committed the historians are to this idea, but this singular point cannot form the crux of the argument that fuels Buddhism's reformist interpretation. That the Dhammapada defines the Brahmin title as something stemming from one's conduct rather than lineage does in no way imply (1) this definition is/was novel, (2) the contemporary society had this infamous rigid orthodoxy which necessitated pushback through such definitions.

For the first point, we can find that such definitions already existed in contemporary popular Hindu texts too.  For example, Mahabharata already has already expressed this sentiment beautifully:

ब्राह्मणः पतनीयेषु वर्तमानो विकर्मसु |

दाम्भिको दुष्कृतप्रायः शूद्रेण सदृशो भवेत् || BORI CE: 3-206-011 ||

यस्तु शूद्रो दमे सत्ये धर्मे च सततोत्थितः |

तं ब्राह्मणमहं मन्ये वृत्तेन हि भवेद्द्विजः || BORI CE: 3-206-012 ||

Translation: A brahmana who performs evil deeds is certain to meet with downfall. One who is vain and the performer of evil deeds is almost equal to a shudra. A shudra who is controlled, truthful and devoted to dharma, always rises. I think him to be a brahmana who becomes a brahmana because of his conduct.

A similar discourse in the same book (Book 3 - Aranyaka Parva) is equally beautiful:

BORI CE: 3-177-018

सर्प उवाच

चातुर्वर्ण्यं प्रमाणं च सत्यं च ब्रह्म चैव ह

शूद्रेष्वपि च सत्यं च दानमक्रोध एव च

आनृशंस्यमहिंसा च घृणा चैव युधिष्ठिर

The serpent asked: "Truthfulness and knowledge of the brahman can be found in all the four varnas. O Yudhishthira! Truthfulness, charity, lack of anger, lack of cruelty, non-violence and compassion can also be found among shudras.

BORI CE: 3-177-019

वेद्यं यच्चात्थ निर्दुःखमसुखं च नराधिप

ताभ्यां हीनं पदं चान्यन्न तदस्तीति लक्षये

O lord of men! You have said that the object of knowledge is beyond happiness and unhappiness. But there is nothing that is free from either. I do not think such a thing exists."

BORI CE: 3-177-020

युधिष्ठिर उवाच

शूद्रे चैतद्भवेल्लक्ष्यं द्विजे तच्च न विद्यते

न वै शूद्रो भवेच्छूद्रो ब्राह्मणो न च ब्राह्मणः

Yudhishthira replied: "If these traits, not even found in a brahmana, are seen in a shudra, he is not a shudra. A brahmana in whom a brahmana's traits are not found, is a shudra.

BORI CE: 3-177-021

यत्रैतल्लक्ष्यते सर्प वृत्तं स ब्राह्मणः स्मृतः

यत्रैतन्न भवेत्सर्प तं शूद्रमिति निर्दिशेत्

O serpent! It is said that one in whom these traits are found is a brahmana. O serpent! One in whom these traits are not found, is marked as a shudra.

And for the second point, my disbelief stems from my personal (but not uninformed) understanding that almost all ancient societies were poor enough to not afford the luxuries of boxing people into specific roles.
Men were under perpetual threat from both natural and man-made forces. Flood, famine, forest fire, warring tribes and disease raged through the lands. No society could afford not utilizing people and their natural inclinations to the fullest - not using a learned man as a priest (mind you, this was a time when priests were not just experts of pure theology but also general knowledge - which herbs to eat, which plants when to sow, when to harvest, what to look for when marrying someone, etc), not using a hardy man for manual labour, and not using the strong and brave as soldiers. 

At the same time, the usual societal structure had the sword-wielding ruling class at the helm, as opposed to the commonly thought to be mantra-chanting priestly class. In addition to this, at least in the Hindu context, being an ascetic would not be a more lucrative vocation than any other trade of those times. Most people would be working in agriculture or some trade and/or military. Taking all of this into account, it does not make sense to me why priestly classes would turn rigid. And as the verses mentioned above show, at every instance that it *could* become rigid, it was already nipped in the bud from within Hinduism through arguments like the ones listed above. It would not need the birth of a completely new sect of Hinduism just to counter orthodox rigidity.

Buddhism can be understood as an alternative to "Brahman"-ism in the sense that it does not subscribe to the idea of Brahman as the eternal truth. Beyond that, I'm still not convinced by the reformist interpretation. It seems misguided at best and malicious at worst.

Convict labour used in building American roads

TIL: 19th-20th century convict labour and 'chain gangs' in the US

Chain gang street sweepers, Washington, D.C. 1909

I was reading a book recently that mentioned the main character being captured by the police for being a vagrant, and then sentenced to 6 months of labour, released after serving his sentence and then captured again, ad infinitum.

I've been reading up some more on this and every new bit of information pains me more and more, especially knowing that this practice continued supposedly well into the middle of the 20th century. I wanted to put it all down in this post, the way I understood it, so that it's not only helpful in clearing my thoughts on the issue but also acts as a reference to the solid foundation of barbarity that the current state of America rests on.

I would like to begin in pre-Civil war America. This is the America of the 1850s. The fruits of the industrial revolution have spread from Europe to the West, and the world stage is set for some truly massive industrial states. While pre-industrial societies depended heavily on manual labour for their daily upkeep, machines now hint towards a future where human effort would soon be rendered useless, costly and inefficient. This vision however is still nascent and this future is still too far away for those societies. Machines are still not ubiquitous and versatile enough to be used everywhere, and still not automatic enough to replace everyone. Societies still needed people, just like an ant colony needs worker ants.

America, of the first half of the 19th Century, solved this issue through slaves. According to this article, and you will find plenty like it online, much of the early growth of America can be attributed to slaves. Slaves were infinitesimally costly and utterly easy to overwork, which made them infinitely profitable to the slave owners which in turn boosted the economy of not only the southern states but also the entire country. By 1860, enslaved Black Americans made up nearly 13% of the U.S. population and were responsible for the majority of the country's agricultural wealth. Cotton alone accounted for more than half of U.S. exports — the essential fuel of the global industrial economy. Northern banks insured slave owners, Northern factories spun slave-grown cotton, and Northern shipyards built the vessels that carried it abroad. The entire republic was complicit.

Then the Civil War happened. I will not get into the details of the war itself, but the aftermath was he 13th Amendment. It abolished slavery and indentured servitude throughout the nation, *except as punishment for a crime*. 

The second part is important for us here. One can still be turned into a slave, if found guilty of a crime. And one can still be found guilty of a crime, if a law is specifically designed to that purpose. The industrialists were sorely missing their unpaid slave labour but the state came to their rescue through 'convict leasing'. Almost immediately after emancipation, Southern states enacted the Black Codes — laws that criminalized "vagrancy", "idleness," or "insulting gestures." Newly freed men who couldn’t prove employment were arrested and fined. When they couldn’t pay, they were "leased" to private companies to work off their debt. 

The state profited by renting prisoners to railroads, coal mines, brickworks, and plantations. The lessees fed and housed them, but had no incentive to keep them alive. Mortality rates reached 25% in some camps. In 1898, Alabama derived 73% of its total state revenue from convict leasing. Companies paid the state for prisoners and reaped enormous profits.

Chain gang working on a railroad near Asheville, 1915.

Working conditions in these labour camps were unsurprisingly quite brutal. Not only was the work strenuous - breaking rocks, digging railroads through the hills, cutting pine for turpentine, mining coal underground for fourteen hours a day, but failure to meet the standards meant being whipped for slowing down, starved for disobedience, and shackled in iron at night. 

While strong demands for reform in the early 1900s made the state disassociate from and therefore discontinue convict leasing, the practice still continued under a different name. "Chain gangs" was essentially state run convict labour, where groups of prisoners were shackled together by their feet and forced to contribute towards public infrastructure building and maintenance like building roads and draining swamps under the sun. In my opinion, being state-run, chain gangs provided a kind of legitimacy to this covert slavery that convict leasing previously had not provided it.

While convict leasing did officially end in 1928, further reading tells me that it was just replaced with massive prison farms in the south. While the state focus shifted from agriculture to new age produce post-WW2, things didn't much improve as far as the convict labour was concerned. Growing tobacco in the 18th century to growing cotton in the 19th century to laying railroads to then pivoting to mass producing furniture, plastic goods, textiles, and so on and so forth. The system still remains in some form of the other.

Till today, the specific clause in the 13th Amendment stands, and even today the prison industry provides "employment" to prisoners for as little as 0.13$/hr.

---

Monocausal explanations for why things are the way they are may make for a good story but are rarely sufficient. Still, when I found out about this, one thing seemed clear: the rise of America as the world’s reigning superpower rests on massive industrial output built upon the barbaric foundations of slavery—explicit or disguised. The Americans inherited—if not outright stole—a vast continent, divided it into farms and industrial plots, and relied on enslaved labor to ensure maximum productivity.

Knowing this, it’s difficult not to feel anger when the United States lectures the world about freedom, democracy, or human rights, or makes racist “third world” jibes toward developing countries. Nations like the U.S. owe their current position to a deeply compromised past and have little moral ground to judge others who may not have reached similar wealth but have not trampled civic liberty and human dignity on such scales.

Why can't we build like we did before?

I had the opportunity to visit Rajgad a few days ago. It's been 15-20 years since I'd last been there, and back then I didn't really appreciate how sprawling it is. It has three large border wall constructions at three different directional extremities - Padmavati Machi, Suvela Machi, and Sanjivani Machi.

As I stood atop Balekilla appreciating the fort's expanse, I wondered how they managed to build it all. Ghanekar Sir told me a number that I unfortunately forgot so take this with a grain of salt - 2.25 lakh tonnes  - that's the amount of stone that went into building the fort. Some part of this was the non-porous basalt rock that was excavated while building cisterns. Some part of it must be from the loose rocks found on the mountain itself, and a small part of it could also be other building material brought atop the mountain from the villages below. In the absence of modern machinery why backhoe loaders, excavators, cranes, etc. it's really impressive how they managed to build all of it. 

A partial answer is labour, or how easy it was to get a lot of it. Bigari kaamgars (forced labour) was the default construction worker. Others were usually paid in just daily meals. Very few would be paid in actual money. Another part of the answer is that they did have some primitive machinery to aid them. I am pretty sure pulleys existed, so a gin-pole like mechanism to lift heavy loads is not unthinkable. Then, pushing/pulling loads across the ground is pretty easy if you can place a handful of logs and then roll stuff on them. Donkeys, mules, bulls, horses or even elephants would be used in plenty to help out in between. 

It still won't be as easy though. Sahyadri terrain would be very unforgiving. Dense vegetation, tall hills, carnivorous beasts, danger from enemies...all of these would've made it very difficult.  A quick google search tells me that there are about 360 such forts in Maharashtra. Impressive how they built these huge structures!