Before proceeding with the discussion any further, we need to address the basic issues related to communalism. So, what essentially can be considered as a communal question? Is it the same as communal politics? Will asserting a particular identity inevitably lead to communal politics? And finally is communal politics regressive in all contexts?

People belonging to a nation or even a region for that matter, will definitely have diverse features some of which become a part of their identities. Ethnicities, languages, dialects, religions, castes, political stands to cuisines are identities. But we do not see people fighting or turning towards violence over the issue of cuisines by itself even when it is a significant secular issue. The other identities have invariably been used in the political spheres independently. While taste of food is quite significant part of a person’s life, it is most often a virtual identity like caste or religion which is often more inflammable.

For example, the people belonging to Malabar in Kerala have a unique cuisine, distinguishable from South or Central Kerala. It is quite famous for non-vegetarian meals, where fish curry is almost indispensible. This choice of food is common to both Hindus and Muslims. A Muslim might have different prayer rituals or belief sets than a Hindu or a Christian, but these are seldom issues that have an immediate impact on day today life. Yet, a Malabari Hindu is nowadays finding more common interests with a Travancore Hindu or a U.P. Hindu who has a different cuisine, social outlook and even the language or dialect.

Let us take another case. I have stayed in college hostels for UG (at NIT Calicut) and PG (at ISI Kolkata) where people coming from different parts of the nation resided in the same building. In the common mess of UG fresher’s hostel, there were always little skirmishes over cuisines yet never to the extent of creating a divide between individual students. In PG, again the same issue was seen between Bengalies and non-Bengalies, although not to an extent of creating a vertical split into two groups. But in many a discussion related to religion or region the differences and lack of comfort surfaced which were distinctly cuisines related. Many Hindus tend to believe that a Muslim is by default not as kind hearted as a Hindu or Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, since he predominantly eat non-vegetarian food including beef. Orthodox Muslims on the other hand consider Pork eating habit among Christians (and some Hindus) as a symbol of being totally unclean. People coming from the cow belt, find Bengali and Keralite food habits (especially the dominance of fish and other non-vegetarian items) often very offensive.

A friend f mine was shell shocked when I told him that people of Kerala do not find eating beef offensive and despite born of Hindu parents, I eat beef and that it is openly served in most hotels in Kerala. When I tried to reason with him saying that Mutton and Chicken are fine while beef is offensive is an arbitrary classification and totally absurd, he wouldn’t agree. Now we see a complex situation here, the same people who have differences over cuisines as individuals are fine with the differences except may be at the dining table. But when this difference in food habits is superimposed with religion, caste or region, it becomes an impression and prejudice and often in charged atmospheres, a reason for communal riots. This strange phenomenon was quite visible during the days of Raj itself. Hindu organisations and traditionalist people opposed cow slaughtering vehemently when it were Muslims at the other end while they never raised any objection to Britons or other Europeans residing in India eating beef. In fact, in most localities where Hindus and Muslims lived together, very rarely was beef openly sold or cow slaughtered. But the issue was always taken beyond that point to call for ban on beef throughout the nation or provinces like Bengal, Bihar and U.P.

The above examples point to some interesting aspects of identity distinctions. People are more often members of many identity groups with no apparent conflict of interest. A person can be a Malayalee, married to a non-Malayalee, born of Hindu parents but atheist by conviction, Engineer by qualification, while a writer by choice, Indian by citizenship, yet internationalist by ideology, Born in middle class with friends from working class and upper class etc. And these identities can all exist in the same person. But when we evaluate another person, membership in a particular identity group becomes a matter of distinction and often prejudice. This is often interpolated to a conflict of interest and after a stage, develops into communal line of thought and action.

Inter-marriage is very rare among communities in India like Muslims, Hindus, Christians or Sikhs. This particular aspect itself create virtual social ghettos, yet the marriage and other civil engagements are not just compartmentalised based on religion, but also caste, sub-caste, ethnicity, region, language and economic status. Except among (mostly urban) secular minded, middle or upper classes, most personal civil engagements are community based. Keeping in mind this ground reality, we have to say that the majority of the population are very much identity conscious and in this context, communal.

Assertion of an identity and viewing others through the monocle of some perceived identities, essentially form the basis of communalism. The fact while is that, people are members of various identity groups and putting them in a particular group is very often arbitrary and irrational. This irrationality is the beginning of communal thought. So at the basic level, communal question is not essentially a foreign export (as argued by some Nationalist and Marxist historians), although colonialists should have used this identity consciousness to their advantage and many a times catalysed it. Communal question always existed, but never surfaced until British arrived and mass politics took shape. Essentially what happened during the Raj was that it was largely raised by the middle classes and got extrapolated to the idea of conflict of interest. Growth and development of communal politics took place during the days of Raj and this is distinct from the passive communal thought which existed in India since perhaps the beginning of history.

Now let us focus on the question whether asserting a particular identity can inevitably lead to communal politics? Existence of communal thought is a harsh reality and most people around the globe are communal in varying degrees. Even in more open societies in Europe and North America, stereotyping of various identity groups is very much prevalent. Thus the issues with head veil in France (apart from security reasons) and minarets in Switzerland are glaring examples of communal thoughts put into action by the so-called enlightened Europeans; discrimination against non-Muslims in Arab nations form another example from communities who are economically well off. The call for banning beef is a direct communal message by Hindu organisations in India. A surprising aspect of such communal calls is that these individual communities consider themselves as fair, just and even secular many a times. A right wing Hindu believes that despite his argument to ban beef on religious ground, he has the right to consider himself secular and non communal. Many an Arabs (or even other Muslims in South Asia) believe that discriminating kaffirs, is a justified course of action and Christians right wingers in US consider it fully justified to amend constitution to include Judeo-Christian ideals and symbols. In all these examples, we find that identity assertion has lead to identity exclusiveness and resulted in communal thoughts and then naturally taking a political course.

In traditional societies, existence of water tight compartments often prevented communal thoughts from getting into a political scene. A problem within the Muslim community is dealt fully by the members and chiefs of that community. Communities acted as individuals who avoided war with each other for their own self interest. Individual freedom or choice was limited and people (with very few exceptions) were confined to the community of birth. This is essentially true in the case of India too. But that doesn’t justify traditional exclusive mentality for it has many other problems associated and is basically an anachronistic idea. In general, we can say that in today’s world if communal thought has risen, it is only a matter of time that it will lead to communal politics and course of action. In modern democracies, the only way to ensure that communal politics do not dominate public sphere is by building a stronger civil society which doesn’t view things through monocle of particular identities, even when identities do exist.

Next, given that communal politics is the direct consequence of identity exclusiveness and problem in identity perception, it is bound to exist in most societies. Let us check if it serves any other larger cause. Most communal minded people naively believe that standing united as a pressure group and bargaining based on a particular perceived identity can serve their long term interests. While prima facially it might appear to be a valid justification, especially since there are already other similar pressure groups, in reality it is a self defeating exercise in the long term. The first reason for this being a logical fallacy that, the identity which they are upholding for bargaining itself consists of many other sub or super identities. If Hindus are considered as an identity, there are Bengalies, Marathies, Gujarathies, U.P. wallahs, Orriyas, Tamilians, Telugus, Malayalees, Kannadigas, etc among them and these are as much strong as the Hindu identity. Within each of these identity groups there are various castes and sub-castes, there are pure vegetarians, non-vegetarians who doesn’t eat beef to beef eating Hindus; there are pro-reservationists and anti-reservationists, and there are extreme right wingers to extreme left wingers. Thus is it impossible for any organisation to claim that they represent the interests of Hindus in India. In fact, it is impossible to find a real common platform for all Hindus, other than a virtual perception of themselves to be Hindus. This is true for Muslims or Christians too. It might be possible for certain pocketed groups with very much similar beliefs to form political organisations and bargain for a short term. Thus we might find organisations like SIO, SSF, IUML, MIM, PDP etc. among Muslims, but none having a considerable influence up on all Muslims other than in pockets. The case of Hindus is also similar. RSS might have some influence in North India, but their influence is marginal to insignificant in states like West Bengal, Tamilnadu, Kerala, North-East and in major metros, where professionals dominate.

Second important reason as to why communal politics is regressive is that, communal politics only leads to furthering the theory that there is a conflict in interest, while in most real cases the root cause has nothing to do with the communal question. It is most often the result of a wrongly identified reason. Thus it can only lead to more and more social fragmentation not only between the competing groups but also within the groups themselves. For example, If Muslims claim that they are socially backward because of Hindus, they are essentially attributing a real problem (social backwardness) to a fictitious reason for there is no uniform identity called a Hindu; there are lower castes and lower income groups among them, there are conservatives, liberals, progressives and even pro-OBC reservationists among them. The only section which might be left behind after leaving these people might be less than 10% of the population, which itself will be less than total number of Muslims in India. Now, this idea of social backwardness being due to one group can and will be further applied within the community which might lead to a conflict between liberals and orthodoxy, high income and low income, South Indian and North Indian, Bengali speakers, Malayalam speakers and Urdu speakers etc. Thus communal politics, in whatever guise or context, is essentially regressive and self defeating. It could sustain in power for sometime only inflicting a heavy toll. Even in the case of moderate communal politics, this case applies.

Now that we have discussed the identity issue and communalism in general, we can proceed to look at it from the perspective of Indian history. In doing so, I would like to quote the main arguments by various schools of historians. In the next section, I would like to start with the centre to left (Academic Marxist) view put forward by the likes of Bipan Chandra along with critically analysing the same.

References

1. India’s Struggle for Independence; Bipan Chandra, Penguin books.
2. The Argumentative Indian; Amartya Sen, Penguin books.
3. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny; Amartya Sen, Norton.
4. Themes in Indian History, Part III; NCERT Class 12 text book.

to be continued

A Song and a Scare.

Chalachithra ganangal (the film songs programme in Malayalam) by Akashavani (Indian national radio) after 1:00 PM was quite a part of the life of every Keralite (a native of the southern state of Kerala in India) born before late 80′s. A few days back, all of a sudden, perhaps from an upsurge of nostalgia, I tried to simulate it by putting a long playlist of Malayalam songs in my laptop with the random pick option. I was expecting a nap with the songs playing in the background like a sweet lullaby, yet the very first song sank me into a deep and disturbing thought………

Jaanakee jaanee raamaa ……. (lyrics)

I was completely taken over by the voice of Yesudas to the edge of slipping into a relaxing nap when I tried to recollect the details of the song.

Yousuf Ali Kechery and Naushad (known after Mugal-e-Azam‘s music)! For the very first time in my life I was conscious that a beautiful Hindu devotional song in Sanskrit (about Ram from Ayodhya- did that ring any bells) was written and composed by two great artists who happened to be Muslims. The very next second, this very thought gave me a scare. Never in my life were I conscious about the fact that Yousuf Ali Kechery or the legend Naushad Ali were Muslims. That thought simply did not occur any time.

I was not concerned if I too were getting communalised. Having moved out from the shell of religious identity and even theism, there was no grain of doubt regarding that. But what arouse my concern was that this sycophantic communal hysteria and the rampant identity profiling happening around is having a subconscious effect. Yes, to that extend, the very fact that I find it relevant to think and appreciate that two Muslims composed one of the best ever Hindu devotional songs in Sanskrit that appeared in a Malayalam movie and was sung by a Christian, made me ashamed of self on the second thoughts.

What is happening to us? Why is the world shrinking to narrow identities which were just a matter of accident? What has led me to think – even for a split second- that it was wonderful symbol of harmony, while the greater and normal course should have been to appreciate the musical talents of those legendary individuals?

A Conflict of Identities

A year before or so, Shabana Azmi, the renowned Hindi film actress, had remarked in an interview that she was becoming more and more conscious of her Muslim identity in recent times. I had visited the comment section of the article (published online) and wasn’t surprised by the gush of hooligan comments accusing her for being ungrateful towards the generosity (!!) showered by the majority population (Hindus). It was a revealing example of supposedly well educated urban upper middle class of India sparing no opportunity to vent out their self-imagined frustrations.

More recently I confronted the other side of the same issue when a colleague of mine, who happened to be a Muslim, was surprised when he saw that I was mailing to a close friend who had a distinguishable Muslim name. ‘Hey, so you have a Muslim friend too’ came as a shock to which I didn’t bother to answer and just smiled back. Both the confession of Mrs. Azmi and my colleague’s exclamation are current reality in stark terms.

Coming to think about it, our complex, intertwined identities, which have helped people to be more than the sum of the parts, and are getting more and more reduced and compartmentalised into a monoliths where choices are fast becoming binary. My colleague had multiple choices to look at the identity of my friend whom he didn’t even know; he could have been my classmate, belonging to my home town, a Keralite, an erstwhile colleague etc. While him being a Muslim by birth was the most interesting part that my colleague found. Also, this was not a singular incident and some Hindus (more often non-Keralites) too have wondered how it is possible to share and appreciate the cultural values of a Muslim (as if religion is the sole reason for all cultural diversities).

After the human tragedy of partition, the resolute intention of the Indian leaders (despite their own ideological differences and personal failures) was to lay the foundation of an all encompassing nationality where every other identity could still remain and flourish, but without being at war with each other. Have we failed them or were their intentions based on fundamentally flawed assumptions?

Presently in the wake of the so called war against terror, a much more terrifying paradigm shift is happening around us. On one side, being a Muslim is equated to a potential extremist or terrorist (at least in the subconscious level) by the right wing while on the other side being a religious Hindu, which is just one of the subsets of personal identity, is portrayed as the symbol of ‘Indianness’. Slowly, the definition of nationality is getting re-written along narrow communal lines without the knowledge of individual citizens. The blame does not squarely fall on one particular community- be it Hindu or Muslim- but on the very national discourse after independence and partition when we identified the communalist tendencies rightly but didn’t come up with a fool proof agenda to eradicate them. We forgot that chanting mantras of communal harmony (which although important) alone will not effect to wipe out or marginalise communalism. The issue has much more to do with our own perceived identities. And to understand this conflict of identities we need to have a fresh look at the pages of history- the history of communalism in India.

This series on the history and dynamics of communalism in India is in a way an attempt to contribute towards the question of ‘various identities vis-a-vis nationhood’. Rather than making sweeping generalisations on the question ‘who is to be blamed’, I would like to take the stand of a spectator. I would like to take this opportunity to review various perspectives about birth and growth of communal politics in undivided India- from right wing Hindu, through Colonial, Marxist, Centrist, Secularist views to right wing Muslim views from Pakistan.

To be continued

The reading list of quite hefty and I don’t want to arrive at a half baked opinion based on a few books written from a particular school of thought. But I am not in a position to refer any primary sources and so the best I could do is to make the reading list wide and inclusive. Since the subject itself is hotly contested by various ideological affiliations, the task of separating rice from chaff won’t be easy either.

Okay, let me break the suspense although it won’t sound very interesting to most people. So expect a series on “Through the Eye of Partition: The birth and the Social dynamics of Communalist Ideologies in India“.

Internet is addictive; much more than I had presumed. Sitting before this idiot box and browsing through pages at random has been the only pass time since I bought a laptop. And yes, I did pay the price for it in many ways. So dear blog, it is time to be “back with you”; back to my home in the virtual world and stop fooling around aimlessly.

Now in the real world I finally won the battle to get back to the self. Thanks to Tinni for the marvellous books. I really treasure them and more than anything you just gave me what I needed badly. The smell of fresh printed pages, the feel of home and a lot of care.

Here are my gifts (and the current reading list)

• The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian Culture, History and Identity by Amartya Sen.
• Science and Society. A Collection of Essays by Sushil Kumar Mukherjee.
• Perilous Passage. Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital by Amiya Kumar Bagchi.
• Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russel.

Three Bongs and a Briton as authors (Calcutta and the Raj legacy). Out of the four, two (Sen and Bagchi) are economists (and Bongs!) and both educated at Trinity college, Cambridge with academic interest in developmental economics. A mathematician cum philosopher (Russel) and another scientist (S. K. Mukherjee) talking about scientific thinking and two Nobel laureates (Russel and Sen) also known for being vocal atheists speaking out. Altogether it is really a treat for the variety of topics and the repute of the authors.

So thanks again Tinni. I will get back here with the reviews .

“I want to do with you what spring does with cherry trees…. ”

-  Pablo Neruda , “Every Day You Play” (Juegas Todos las Días), from Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair [ Viente Poemas de Amor y una Cancion Desperada] (1924)

When I heard these words first, I did not know what spring meant or how a cherry tree will look like.  …….
I was just a kid, and like any kid wanted to see through words …..
When I asked my mother she said, “trees blossom in spring ….”
I imagined the finest time in our place when plants blossom and there is exist an aura of nature at best.
I liked the beauty of of spring in my unlimited space and time; enjoyed and admired it.

She was my best friend in my innocent days …..
Why she was, was unrepresentable and unknown; perhaps by some  more to be known chemistry of life’s molecules . ….
She was my best company for all childhood games.
When we played ‘the little hut’, I told her a few words,
Some unformatted sentence like, “I love to be with you and feel to make this place something that onam does to our garden plants ….”
She smiled and for a moment imagined …….
She granted me a kiss and told me that she found in me then something cute and lovable as her little new born sister; something she loved to be with ……..
For a moment all imposed structures that ruled life broke and melted down ….
We, two 4 year olds found more meaning about life which then we could not comprehend ……
And a year after we parted for ever …. …………..

Years later when this was what I wanted to tell somebody,
All barriers played with mind in their turns,
And I had long broken most but one for ever …..
My eduction restricted me to spell it the way I wanted- that education that we are not just men and women,
But a thousand invented rules about what to express exist;
That if not, I am being uncouth ……….

Now, when I see through those cultured mannerisms we ought to follow,
I wonder about the hypocrisy.
About life and its eternal force I shouldn’t talk;
About why we are here, I can’t utter;
And about that yet-to-be-known chemistry of love, it still lies as the forbidden fruit;
And in each of our expressions that inlined phrase is not beauty, but a taboo …..
I wonder about world …!
But still I say to love is that unknown urge to see a tree blossom;
The urge to be the spring which would bring smiles
With emotions, with words and with the body ………..

To say “I want to do with you what spring does with cherry trees…. ”
And we do not end there too ……….

Before the heat consumes you
Draining every life drop of water and salt
Extinguishing the splinters that once burned undettered
Before you fade into a shadow of self,
Unfeatured and fuzzy in appearance
And before you conclude and surrender with dismay
Cursing inevitabilities while locking your pulses in cold freezers
Take a minute to look around.
Ponder the golden smiles of red hot summer
The halos of life around every dried falling leaves
Poignant thirst deepening the shallow roots;
So why let drudgeries shape destinies
For life’s beauty are its oddities

Let us look at the case of many a typical Indian women. A girl is usually brought up to be an image her mother itself. The mannerisms, dressing and even so called sense of modesty is rather imposed up on her from the childhood itself. Once I happened to have a chat with a friend of mine. Let us call her Chaithanya (not her actual name). Brought up in a traditional family she got educated in Bombay and I happened to see her after ten long years. She was complaining about the extreme chauvinistic attitude of Keralite men and rightly so. Even the movies made is Malayalam reflects how the male and female stereotype in Kerala are. But when I asked her. Some distant cousin of her had apparently boasted about immodest dressing of women which “provocates” men and she felt irritated. But she had to smile and sit there being a young woman who should be “modest”. I asked her why did not she retort and she replied “all though I do not like it, it is a reality that we girls need to act a lot and keep quite in such situations or else it is considered as impudence”

“Well, then you don’t approve it ,right. So why not at least speak about that in a casual conversation at home avoiding a heated debate. See Chaithanya, how can you conclude that people won’t approve until you try it first and take the freedom that you know you possess.” I said.

She replied, “Perhaps,you are right…. But I simply can’t. You have to be a woman to understand that…”

“I cannot be a woman which is a fact. But you miss the point here. Nobody can make you free. There is nothing like a person being emancipated by other at the intellectual level. Only you can make you free. And for that you need to be convinced about your freedom and be prepared to take the freedom and its responsibilities… You know I rmember Balachandran Chullikkad’s lines

Oru daiva puthranum ninte rakshaykkini

Varikilla kaathirikkendaa.

Neemaathrameeyullu ninte mukthikku nin

Neethi boodham thanne sharanam “

“I can appreciate your thoughts but some how I miss out in action……….  I mean most girls do … We are helpless. “

“Dear Chaithanya, you are an old school friend and playmate of mine. We have known each other from very early ages. And you know that we both were just enacting the role our parents and society gave till the time when we began to think by our own.  I remember that you had to be near home with other girls when we played football and cricket in the field. And at times you used to ask us whether you could join it. Usually the big boys there had the say and response is typical. A girl cannot possibly play football with boys. We both accepted it then and now I think it as absolute stupidity. If you had been with us on the ground regularly you would have turned a sturdy girl. But then, that is a deviation from the female stereotype that our society has. That fear makes your parents dictate you to be that stereotype girl in all aspects. Of course, I do not see anything wrong in being a ‘chocolate loving’, ‘emotional’, ‘chaterbox’, ‘well dressed’, ‘good looking’ and ‘modest’ girl that you see everywhere. Only that they have taken refuge under authority to escape from freedom. I tell you that freedom is not a chocolate. It is sweet but burns like a fire.  All I am telling is there is no point in this blame game alone. The conditions are not desirable, that is a fact. But what is the point in complaining without challenging those powers-that-be. “

There was a moment of pause. Then she continued.

“…… Das, I accept what you said. In fact, these had been the thoughts that dominated me, while doing my graduation at Bombay. Once back, I feel that I am automatically returning to that old self…. And you are one of my good friends, so nothing to hide. You see, we are by design made more earthly creatures…… The menstural cycle itself reminds every women her so called limitations, each month…. You know, the feel is different.  I admire women who were really able to challenge all those limits…. I mean they are really something….. But can I be one of them … is a big question …..”

Again a moment of pause.

“Yeah, I understand. At least intellectually, if not with its full emotional strength. Still, those are not answers too. Don’t you realize it? …….. Within a few months you will have to enact your part as the heroine of the age old drama of ‘pennu kaanal’ …. And I could never imagine a more stupid way to for a couple to know each other. The script of the dialogues that goes on is predecided. Directed by a ‘vivaha dellal’. It was an issue of  ‘big fight’ in my home once. I had categorically said that I am not in favour of those nonsenses and don’t expect me to be an actor in it. And at some point they might press me for it and I will have to deny it…….. It will be painful, I know. But this is a ground rule here, when I do something which I believe to be ‘right’, the responsibility is mine. I cannot shy away from it. If you cannot justify something others impose upon you by any means, then you need to stick to your freedom. Also never impose your rules up on others too. Other than granted freedoms which comes with love and which should not go to the extend of making a person uncomfortable, we have to fight in order to be free…..  it is not lack of love or respect if you stick to your freedom. In fact when you grant the same freedom to others you are loving then and being more loveable by any yardstick……

… or at least, I will not be considering you a ‘impudent’ girl, if all you demand is your genuine freedom. I will only have more respect for you. …. Think and convince that decisions in your personal life is your freedom at first. Then be prepared to demand it. ……….”

She was staring at me, reflecting up on our conversation. She replied with a difficult smile….

“Perhaps I need to. I need to amass the courage for that first. I don’t know if I will succeed. Wish me good luck….. But then don’t just stare up on me, if after two years,you see me with a kid rushing to kitchen to prepare the breakfast for my husband while he shouts at me…….. “

“Well, I have seen enough contradictions to not to be shocked by something like this, which is least among them….. At least, I have not made you moody by a chat, I suppose.”

“No way …. Good to have some of such grilling sessions. They are quite reflective. I thank you for being honest and brutally frank as always you are…. “

“Nice compliments it is… Anyway, if the chat with a beautiful ‘balyakaala sakhi’ after years didnot turn into a disaster, I am relieved …. “

Aldus Huxley made me confused after his “Brave New World” and Orwell blew the discomfort to the verge of outburst with “1984″. Later Alvin Toffler’s “Power Shift” and Eric Fromm’s “Sane Society” give some reflective inputs. But it was “The Matrix” and “I-Robot” which made some speculations into a vague yet clearer picture. Yes, our basic urge is to define our freedom.

The question of freedom is too wide to be contained by a single example. It has dimensions which spans through the structure and nature of power and humanity’s destiny itself. World have seen enough experimentation and evolutions in the social arena. Aristocracy, Democracy, Theocracy, Feudalism, Capitalism, Communism etc. The fundamental question remains unanswered as yet. Do we need to be ruled? How can we define freedom in the light of what we have seen till this day? There are ardent conservatives on one side and liberals on the other side and the battle is always on. The questions are umpty and new ones are added each passing moment. What about the freedom of sexual orientation? Freedom of mobility?Well, could nudity be described as the freedom of expression? …. Endless … But we need answers. Escaping from difficult questions cannot not take us anywhere.