The old chicken - egg question

I have talked a lot about agnosticism before but today I feel like doing a case by case analysis. So there are n no of religion, with each saying that their God, Bhagwan, Allah etc is the creator of everything etc.

Now let us hypothetically assume it to be true - so that one or more gods either separately or jointly created the universe and humans and everything. Or perhaps there is only one true god and maker and the rest are imagination. Now the question for all people agreeing to this is who made this hypothetical God or Gods. I mean is there a hierarchy God makes man and Earth, God's God makes Gods and heaven. So where does it end? Now there can be no meaningful end to this side of the discussion.

Then comes the idea that there was no God. Well ok then how did we come into being ? Scientists talk of a Big Bang theory, but that hardly is an argument that applies here. How did the matter to go through this Big bang come from. There is no valid argument in either case. I saw this side of no sides a while back and that was the day I became a peaceful agnostic, I respect the problem and have no shame in accepting that  I am not upto finding a solution for this.

P.S. This is basically the same reason I am never afraid in air travel - reason tells me that if there ever be a problem mid air it is only the pilot who can do anything about it and my worrying over something that I have no control over is not going to help in any way.

Pakistan .. why is it what it is ?

We all have been watching from the fence as Pakistan is being ripped apart by a monster of it's own making. But how did it come to this.. at the time of the partition Pakistan tried hard to get a lot of territories to accede to them but they were defeated largely - in the name of leadership they had just Jinnah while India on the other had Patel, Nehru and Gandhi to contribute in different ways. While Patel was the action guy, Nehru was the public face and Gandhi was the mass leader .. Jinnah had to do all these roles by himself. So while Jinnah could hardly match Patel's acumen and planning he also was definitely way behind as the loved leader of the masses - Gandhi was after all 'the father of the nation'. Also due to the tendency to align with the stronger side, most rulers wanted to accede to the seemingly more moderate/considerate Indian leadership and at the same time wherever public opinion counted Hindus (the majority) didn't think of going to Pakistan. There were two critical states that created all the mess that is here today. While Hyderabad had a Hindu majority with a Muslim ruler, Kashmir had a Hindu ruler with a predominantly Muslim population. Now these were vital and India could not afford to lose either while Pakistan was dying to get them. Patel eventually outsmarted Jinnah and wrested both of them out of his hands. Given this humiliating defeat, Pakistan was never bent upon being a friendly neighbour. Also with India's pivotal role in the Independence of Bangladesh - animosity between the neighbours was sealed. Now while India and Pakistan were both in poor shape in terms of technology, finance and defence while India took help from the erstwhile USSR to build itself to what it is today Pakistan for some reason sought to be under the umbrella of USA and never tried to build its own factories, infrastructure or technology etc.. It's leadership was more bent upon wresting over Kashmir from India. Even if they were successful  or are in the coming future - what is the result of it all going to be. Is it going to help even a single person on either side of the border or even in Kashmir? Not really... 
But regardless of basic logic Pakistan continued to fund insurgency and foment terrorist elements in the name of 'liberation of Kashmir'. Well it forgot one basic thing - terrorist are not patriots .. they are professionals. Just as any other professional they want to be employed and they would gladly turn back on their own master rather than be jobless. So now with Pakistan trying to be good and helping USA in the fight against al-Qaeda etc.. the taliban has nothing else to do but turn their AK-47 and bombs to Pakistani cities. I wish I could say 'As you  sow, so shall you reap' but such is not true in case of countries, for leaders mess up and the poor public suffers. 

What's wrong with India

India has over the years proved itself the best place for corruption, inefficiency and incompetence to thrive. Why is it that the law in the country seems so decorative and perhaps even a tool for the rich to wield against their enemies and not one for justice? Numerous events in the current news have made me realise that the worst thing and the root of all the problems in India is none other than the lax judiciary in India. Like a parent that spoils a child and never punishes the brat for mischiefs, so are the officials in every department in India. Just yesterday the pitch for a cricket match was made so poorly that the match had to be abandoned. How is this possible in a country that invests so much in the sport and is a world leader in it? How is it possible for a stadium in New Delhi to fuck up when even countries like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh can manage well every time? And if it is not acceptable why are we seeing just a blame game, possibly an enquiry and no heads on the table ! And the funny and sad thing is that the people are satisfied with just shouting (pelting bottles on the ground in this case) and then going home to crib more on the state of affairs. There is no interest in the public to see the culprits / incompetent officials punished.
The Ruchika case under so much media hype is another sad example of the same. The attention is on why was the accused given so mild a punishment, there is no focus on why did it take 19 years and when there are public statements proving a motley of politicians and civil servants involved in shielding the accused, there is no move to prosecute them. At least suspend them for the time being !!
Such is the sick state of affairs that there is no sense of pride anymore in living in what we call 'Saare Jahan Se Achcha'. This seems to have acquired a sarcastic tinge in such circumstances for me at least ! All I can say is that I will still say 'Saare Jahan Se Achcha Hindustan humara' but without conviction and with a hope that it someday becomes true.

Preconceived notions and discrimination

We may try and say that we do not discriminate, but we know that we actually do have some pre-conceived notions and may at times discriminate. First of all what is discriminating - nothing but unfair treatment to a fellow based on our prejudices and obviously this includes rascism, casteism, sexism etc. I don't think there can be a valid argument towards any kind of discrimination as it comes out of neither logical nor compassion. What, on the other hand does having preconceived notion mean. It is a lukewarm feeling towards a thing you are not very sure about. As I see it, it is nothing but applying probabilities. If you have been many-times lied to by a person, you will have the notion and natural instinct to not readily believe that which this person says. This is very much understandable and this behaviour comes out as a natural defence mechanism and seems to come from logic. But there is a certain blur, a muddiness in the meaning of preconceived notions. This does not include that you act on those notions - notions are just a means of putting you up on your guard. To have doubts about the certain facts/people etc.. and not to have a negative opinion. It is this blurriness which make people act more as discriminators than they really are. So the idea is simple doubt from past experiences/statistics, but verify and then believe