Institutionalized

"This is all he knows. In here, he is an important man; an educated man. Outside, he is nothing. Just a used-up con with arthritis in both hands."

"These walls are funny. First you hate them. Then you get used to them. Enough time passes, and you get to depend on them. That's 'institutionalized'". - The Shawshank Redemption

What an irony! A man depending on the walls of his prison! The gates of the cage are wide open, yet the bird wouldn't fly. Is this not a tragedy?

Gods of Netherworlds

One who has wealth might not be rich; rich is the man who does not want wealth anymore. Richness is just a state of mind.

I was told that God fulfills our wishes. It took me years to find out that the truth is slightly, but significantly, different. God, thankfully, can not fulfill our wishes. Even He can not. He can only empty us of our wishes. Only when we are emptied, we are fulfilled. Because when we are emptied, what remains is God.

But man does not want God. He does not want richness, he wants wealth. And he wants God to give him wealth. Man is acquisitive by nature, so much so that even his God is made up of gold and greed. Man worships God, and when he worships him, he makes an investment in hope of a return. God knows that man worships Him not because of His virtues but because of His power.

*************************************

We are living in an age where everything is becoming an overdose of itself. Economy of scale might promote the cult of overdose to keep its machinery moving, but even in modern times - overdose is poisonous.

When insanity spreads like plague, keeping sanity - sense of proportion - is difficult. When insanity is norm, sanity itself becomes insanity. And it takes insane awareness, insane courage and an insane will to keep yourself aboard. And may be something more - an insane faith.

Desire is a spell cast by the Devil. It prospers in the murky darkness of confusion. Desire is not a dream to be fulfilled; it is a mirage to be pursued; and it is doubly dangerous because it talks logic but doesn't hear a word of it. We are deceived into a disgraceful longing even before we could take a notice of it.

(No philosophy will help you in the jewelery shop when the sales-girl casts her magic on your wife, delicately putting that exquisite work of love on her heart throbbing with greed, leaving her moaning with desire. And as you would know, desires don't listen to logic.)


Godliness is light; it is a condition of joy and contentment, and desirelessness.

Have I seen God? Can I recognize Him? Yes.

When darkness disappears, when noise subsides, things look less real than they used to. When sanity returns, things regain their sense of proportion. Old held beliefs begin to lose their meaning, and their grip on us loosens. Long cherished dreams don't seem to be worthy of our sight anymore. In a moment of epiphany, we see that desires are like mirage, and dogging desires is downright degrading; and we wonder why we do that - dogging, all through our life.

What are we trying to be? We are already complete - each one of us. We are made complete. Growth? Growth is not a desire, it is Nature - a Will of Nature. A tree has to grow unless its roots are clipped. Similarly a man has to grow unless his roots - cerebral roots that expand upwards in the vast expanse of infinity - are clipped. Alas! We see human bonsai everywhere, their roots clipped by their own desires. Nature is one's own; desire is not, it is borrowed. Growth does not need desires, it needs desirelessness.

We laugh and tears of joy roll down, purging all our being, wiping layers of blindness. And when eyes are cleansed, world looks beautiful. We seem a strange sort of affection for all.

This happens when we see God; and when we see God, this happens.

Have I seen God? Yes, I have.

How could I do that?

This is what I scribbled on a piece of paper just after I woke up -

How could I do that?

I can not relate to the state of mind in which I had committed that nonsense.

The act seems foolish to me now.

I feel exposed. I feel jittery.

************************

I have to go back to yesterday evening to reconcile myself with that mood. Why did I do that?

Yesterday I wrote a mail to a girl in my organization, asking for her friendship. And when I clicked the 'send' button, I felt a huge sigh of relief. I congratulated myself.

For quite sometime, this thought had gripped my mind - 'There is nothing admirable about your decency, because it is based on cowardliness.'

Conditioning was still acceptable, but cowardliness? No!

Yes, I like the girl. I like her whenever I see her, and nowadays I always see her. How can you not like such an exquisite grace? But I have also heard the words of wisdom - that such things don't work - proposing etc. When I clicked 'send', I knew that I will hear my own echo, and nothing else. I also knew that I must refrain from such type of misadventures at my workplace. And, above all, I was well aware that a mail is a reproducible document and could prove to be dangerous. It could come back and hit me, and haunt me for a long time.

God damn such cowardly wisdom. They make a man tight-arsed, and living tight-arsed is worse than death. I'd rather be foolish if wisdom prevents playing out in the open. I'd rather go out and play the game of life. I'd risk a little loss in hope of a large gain. I'd risk my ego in order to grow as a man. That, I think, is wisdom.

My purpose of writing was not just to elicit a response from her. I have asked for a response but I don't expect any - and reasons are plenty. Doing what I did was a response in itself for me, which I got there and then. And that was the main pay-off.

I did that because I couldn't do otherwise. I had to do something dangerous. I had to expose myself. I had to make myself vulnerable. I had to refute that nagging reproach of cowardliness. And I had to defeat my ego, for once and all. I had to come out of my shell. That was the whole point. And, I admit, there was (and is) a faint hope to be lucky. Because, you see, she is lovely.

Off to office now. :)

0 = ∞

1. A life of substitutes - We look at mirror to see ourselves. We meet Nature at Discovery Channel. We clip our wings and crawl in cars. We see our bank balance growing and believe that we are growing with it. We have been convinced that it is practical to settle for the substitutes.

But we have been fooled because shadows don't have warmth. And when night falls, they disappear, leaving us lonely and restless.

We don't meet Nature on TV. We don't meet Nature unless we feel it in our lungs, unless we let it penetrate our being, unless we become one with it. Cars do go fast, but they don't go very far. And bank balance don't fill the emptiness we live with 24*7. We can not con (or console) ourselves by numbers for long. Sooner than later we realize that there is no substitute of inner growth.

But most of us live with substitutes. And that's why we feel empty.

2. In terms of? - Hatred is not opposite of love, but it is love turned bitter. Hate is just another form of love. Both draw their life from same source. And both revolve around the same thing.

Christianity warns us of seven deadly sins (Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride) and recommends corresponding seven cardinal virtues (Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, Humility). Virtue, as defined, is nothing in itself without vice. It is anti-vice. It is just a denial of 'sinful' instincts.

But denial can not be a solution to any problem. Fasting doesn't quell hunger, rather it fuels it more. A hungry man can think of nothing else but food. He thinks in terms of food - its taste, its aroma, its feeling, having it or not having it. He resists food, and he keeps it cooking inside him.

Resistance is futile, because it keeps the enemy alive. Most of us live in terms of things that we dislike or disapprove, and not for what we like or admire. Isn't that so?

How to deal with Cancer?

Let me give you a few tips about dealing with those who have the sign of Cancer strong in their horoscopes. How do you tell if a sign is “strong” ? If the person has the Sun, Moon, or Ascendant (also called the Rising Sign) there. In this case, you can include those who have the Moon within six degrees of the Ascendant as well.

Cancer wants what it can not have. As soon as it gets something, it forgets about it. A friend of mine told me that she used to go out with a Cancer man. “He kept asking me if I loved him, but I don’t like to rush into things”, she said. “When I finally told him I loved him, he left suddenly and I never saw him again!”.

The way around disasters like this is to keep the game going. Keep them guessing forever. A client told me that her Cancer Sun-Sign boyfriend had canceled several dates recently. “He says he had a hard day at work and he’s too tired to come over, and he’s doing it more and more”, she complained. I told her what to do. The next day, she called me to say that it worked. “The phone rang at 9 P.M. and I didn’t answer it”, she said. “Did it ring at Exactly 9 P. M.” I asked. “Yes”. Good. It was him. “Then it rang at 9:30, and I still didn’t answer it”. Exactly at 9:30? Yes. So predictable. “Then it rang at 10 P.M., I picked it up and said “Hello”. What did he say? “He said “where were you?’ No hello. Just ‘Where were you?’” He was over there in another half hour and spent the night. Like I say, Cancer can’t stand to loose anything.

Never, ever, give a Cancer a straight compliment. If you tell them that they look good, they will think that something is wrong, or that you’re trying to set them up for something. You have to tell them that they are looking “less bad today” and then ask them if they are trying to break a lifetime trend. Watch them smile.

Cancer men are known for needling the women in their lives until they blow up. They want to “get mommy mad”. If you are involved with one, just be a “tough momma” who’s trying to help them get their life in order. Correct them constantly. If they ask you if you love them, use one of the following lines:

(1) “I’ll think about it”. If they press you for an answer, say “For goodness sake, you know how busy I am. I’m taking time out of my busy schedule to think about whether I love you or not. I think that says something. But some people are just never satisfied!”

(2) Say “Of course I do, uh.. uhh...” and pretend that you forgot their name. Then say “Well what’s in a name anyway. Whatever your name is, I love you.”

(3) Tell them flat out that you have “Better taste than that”.

(4) If you want to tell them that you love them, shake your head, sigh, and say “I don’t know why I put up with you”.

- courtesy http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com

है तुझे भी इजाज़त

बेरंग सी है बड़ी ज़िंदगी
कुछ रंग तो भरूँ
मैं अपनी तनहाई के वास्ते
अब कुछ तो करूँ
जब मिले थोड़ी फुरसत
ख़ुद से कर ले मोहब्बत
है तुझे भी इजाज़त
कर ले तू भी मोहब्बत

Lyrics by Syed Quadri @ Life in a Metro

"है तुझे भी इजाज़त"

So liberating! So full of compassion!

On Wealth Voyeurism

Tapes of Paris Hilton having fun with Dick and Jane in her bedroom are passe. So are steamy MMSs featuring morphed images of Shilpa Shetty. The new titillation for Peeping Toms is wealth voyeurism: peeking through the keyhole of 'rich lists' in glossy magazines which tabulate just how much money super-rich individuals have.

An unconscionable invasion of privacy? Certainly not, say the publications which feature such lists, citing freedom of expression and the general public's right to information. It is certainly in the public interest that the asset value of a corporation, particularly one listed on the market from which it raises funds, be open to general scrutiny.

But can the personal wealth of an individual fall within the purview of the public domain, or should it be the business of that individual only, and of course of the internal revenue department and credit rating agencies, which are bound by strict codes of confidentiality?

Such ethical nitpicking aside, why do popular publications carry 'rich-lists', the 'who's whos' of the plutocratti? And the obvious answer is that such revelations — like a flashed-open trench coat — are supposedly 'sexy', arousing prurient interest as Paris Hilton's boudoir rompings used to before they became monotonous through robotic repetition. Is financial striptease — revealing a person's intimate economic vital statistics — the new erotica?

Leafing through a Grade IV employee's savings account passbook is not of course an acceptable substitute for Penthouse centrefolds. But what about the monetary equivalent of a 'wardrobe malfunction' of the super-rich, a tantalising glimpse of voluptuous superabundance? Isn't money — or at least supermoney — sexier than sex? After all, even the Kama Sutra is anatomically limited in application. But, surely, supermoney is limitless as a lubricious lubricant of endless desire.

The trouble with supermoney as an object of voyeurism is that, after a point, it just doesn't work. Like any other form of pornography, wealth voyeurism is subject to the inexorable law of reductio ad absurdum, or reductio ad boredom. Years ago, the then editor of Hustler magazine complained that after pubic had been made public, what next? X-ray pin-ups? The bare bones of all pornography's dilemma.

Supermoney, and the voyeurism it excites, is no different. After the vicarious frisson of reading about the private jet that Mukesh bought Nita as a birthday present, or about the palace that Lakshmi Mittal acquired as a pied-a-terre in London, what next? Your own personal desert island, a 100-foot Mediterranean yacht, a custom-built Lamborghini with monogrammed number plates? And after all that and more? What comes after all the seemingly inexhaustible devices and desires of wealth have been exhausted? Beyond the dreams of aspiration and avarice, supermoney as an object of voyeurism becomes just a string of zeroes, meaningless and meaning less with each additional cipher.

Full frontal nudity transformed into full frontal nullity. Literally, a zero-sum game.

-- Jug Suraiya (TOI, 17.12.07)

Taare Zameen Par - Every Child is Special

I have seen four movies in Hyderabad and this was the last. As far as cinematic experience alone is concerned, I'd rate Nishabd way above the others - Bheja Fry, Chak De and Taare Zameen Par. But for reasons other than that, Aamir Khan and his team deserve heartiest congratulations. Kudos to him for making this beauty! May God bless you.

[+] Darsheel Safari, Story and Screenplay, Cinematography, Direction

[-] Dialogue, Background Score, Music (Shankar-Ehsan-Loy were predictably mediocre), Lyrics (Gulzar was sorely missed), The entry scene of Aamir Khan (that was downright stupid)

Rate - Cinematic Experience (6/10), Overall (9/10)

Verdict - Watch in theatre

***********************

1. Education is supposed to educe - to bring forth. The teachers should identify what is to be educed, and not upload a child's mind with whatever junk they lay their hands on.

2. Children must not be ranked because they can not be; intelligence can not be measured. And what is measured can not be intelligence.

3. A child can not fail; only his teachers can fail, and they often do. Our schools and universities are filled with thousands of pathetic losers who are out to clone themselves.

4. If exams are absolutely essential, the exams must be examined first. Wrong exams can not give right results.

5. The outside world is not made any less hostile by promoting hostility among children in name of competitiveness. This is irresponsible, even criminal, on part of our institutes.

6. Asking questions is more important than answering questions. Even a bad question is better than a good answer. Till now an answer has been the expected response from students, not questions. Let's change that mindset.

7. Answers are of two types - 1. own, and 2. others'. Own answer may not be as right as others' at first, but have patience - you've nothing to lose and a whole new world to gain.

8. A teacher can learn more from a child than other way round. Children know but they don't know that they know. But the teacher doesn't know and he doesn't know that he doesn't know.

9. If you can not understand children, leave them be. Even if you do, leave them be. Thank you.

10. Every child is special. If you expect a mango tree to grow roses, you know who's a fool. First identify that it is a mango or a rose, then nourish it accordingly.

The Divine Beloved

Love is an existential imperative. But love is forbidden first by society and then by ego. What would one do then?

Enter God the omnipresent. I don't know whether God is a benign source of love but He surely has been the recipient of the deepest of human devotions. Since man is not allowed to love one another, and since he has to love something, he loves God. God is more accessible than the person sitting next to you. When you talk, He listens.

Society wouldn't have allowed Meera to love any living man with the intensity she loved Krishna. And our loving lady would have died of cardiac arrest if Krishna were not there for her. He might have had thousand maidens dancing around Him, but for each of the maidens there was no one else but Him. Men might see Krishna as a lucky lover, or as a Casanova, but women see Him not as a lover but as their beloved - their graceful beloved. In Him, they express the forbidden. With Him, they feel like women. With Him they play, and in him they redeem themselves.

कान्हा काहे करत बरजोरी

Similarly, Tulsidas had to drown himself in Rāmacaritamānasa when his wife rebuked him for his earthly passions. She asked him to go to God, and so he did; and in Him he found solace. When the flame of love burns passionately, God is the only beloved who can stand the heat. Cleansed by the silent stream of tears, poetry becomes prayer. Like true love, true prayer is also unconditional. No other experience can match the experience of prayer, so what else can one ask for? Also, there is nothing called unrequited prayer. How can gratitude be unrequited?

हो गई किरपा राम की, तो बन गए तुलसीदास

There can be no moderation in love; it's free, and it's infinite. Only He can be loved freely, and infinitely. There is no ego, no fear, between a lover and his divine beloved.

Who are you?

Let's assume that you are a prince/princess. You have everything that can be bought by money. You have everything that can be obtained by power. You don't have to work for a living. You have days and years lying ahead of you. Now what would you do?

Think about this scenario to know who you actually are.

For most of your waking hours you are a software engineer, or a financial consultant or things like that. You are them to earn money. You play roles, and be your role. You are them to have an identity(!), and status in society. But you are a prince now. You don't need money anymore. You don't have to do nothing for status now. You don't have to play any role.

Think about this. Now you do not have to be anyone else. You can be yourself. Now ask yourself - who are you?

And what do you really want? What do you want apart from palaces and cars, apart from recognition by others? Have you ever thought about it? Have you ever asked your heart what you really want?

If you can hear your heart you will know what it wants. And money and power couldn't afford you those things. In fact you could only lose them in the mad pursuit of money and power. But still you want to be rich and powerful. What for? What else is Maya?

Siddhartha had to renounce princedom to become Buddha; what do you want to be?

Shame Australia, Shame

About two years back I had said - Remove Judge to Save Justice. The conflict between the game of cricket and those who are appointed to officiate the game has become irreconcilable, and worse - visible to all. Technology has brought everything out in open for everyone to see; and media has educated the people round the globe and allowed them to express their opinions. Cricket is not the same anymore, and so the truth can not be ignored in the name of tradition. The decision-makers have to decide whether the modern cricket will be played and seen as a game of random decisions and wanton contempt for its law or otherwise. A right decision may not save the losing team, but that will surely save the spirit of the game. And I am afraid that if Reason is humiliated anymore, the Economics might wreck vengeance upon them whom it has made powerful.

Now have a look at this video.

Coming to the banning of Harbhajan, he must be banned if he has done what he has been accused for. However, he can not be penalized without a fair trial, and without his offense proved. And offense is not proved by mere accusation. But it seems that Procter's court didn't need any trial, any evidence to do what it did. Perhaps he will be in better position to explain the reasons for the sentence that he has pronounced without any incriminating evidence available. To an outsider like me, he looked just too eager to push the button. Being a South African, he claims that he knows what racism is. I am sure you do Mr Procter, just as a butcher knows the pain of death.

Saying someone 'monkey' is saying that he is 'less evolved', and that indeed makes it a racial slur. I have no doubt that it is a racial comment. This is what a racist says to others - less evolved. All allusions to Indian Mythology is nonsense.

But it should not be forgotten racism is founded on the history of colonialism, and subsequent cultural subjugation. It has a meaning only in its tradition; there is nothing that is logical in it. Isn't it curious that the first convicted accused of racism (in ICC) happens to be a colored man, who also happened to have been the poor victim of the same?

Finally, I have no hesitation in saying that the Australian audience have much more respect for the game of cricket than their national team; and the Sydney test has established it officially. They are undoubtedly the most competent team around, but they are hardly anything more than that.

Introducing - 'Sitara'

Born in Pakistan, and proud of it!

When Nano was still on drawing boards, Habib Motors of Pakistan beat India by launching Sitara - the marvel of Pakistani technology.



Read this article on Sitara (courtesy TOI).

Sitara includes parts almost entirely designed and manufactured locally. The 175 cc Chinese engine is manufactured in Lahore. The car does not exceed 400 kilograms in weight, and has a load-bearing capacity of 250 kilograms. The capacity of the fuel tank is 10 liters and consumption is 18 kilometers per liter. The maximum speed allowed is 60 km/hour.

Keeping the safety of people in mind, especially at high speed, locally made seat belts have also been provided by the manufacturer. Understandably, Sitara costs a little more than Nano - 1.26 lakh.

Habib Motors have sold not less than 60 Sitara car(t)s since its launch in 2004. That many Pakistani families now fly at 60 kmph with their seat belts safely (and proudly) tied on. Mashallah!

Between the Two

चलती चक्की देख कर दिया कबीरा रोय,
दो पाटन के बीच में साबुत बचा न कोय।

Between the two moving slabs of grinder, i.e. the days and the nights, man gets crushed.

Kabir says that days and nights are like the heavy slabs of a grinder, one turning on top of the other, and crushing whatever is stuck in between.

But this is just one interpretation. What about the conflict between mind and heart? Mind seeks truth, but the world of heart is a world of thousand ironies - where the opposite of truth is equally true.

ईमाँ मुझे रोके है जो खींचे है मुझे कुफ्र,
काबा मेरे पीछे है कलीसा मेरे आगे। - गालिब


********************************
In search of truth, I found love;
In search of love, I found God*.

10

Our popular hero, Abhishek*, ran for a cool 10 km today.

Unperturbed by popping of eyes and beating of hearts around him, he did quite a Forest Gump this morning in KBR Park, Hyderabad.

We are so tearfully proud of him. With extreme sense of pride and honor we bow before His Valor. Now let's raise a toast and celebrate this momentous occasion with a glass of milk.

Reading The Last Word

Last month my landlord said that we should know each other.

And yesterday he came up with a bagful of books on Islam. Perhaps he wanted me to know about him by reading those books. I wonder if he has ever taken any pains to know something about me.

I asked him his opinion about the girl from Qatif, and asked what he has to say about Taliban. Quite an amiable fellow he is, he smiled amiably and said that there was an order in Afghanistan while Taliban was in power. And there was peace, and freedom too; in fact it was Taliban that freed Afghanistan from the clutches of Russia. After coming to power, they put an end to drug trafficking and stopped other corruptions prevalent at that time. When I showed him The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini, the book I have read recently, he dismissed the work as a false propaganda by the West.

As far as the girl from Qatif was concerned, he had little to say except 'there are some rules that must be followed'. Talking of the rules, he had seen a man publicly being stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, and he holds this practice as just since he thinks that this severity discourages others to commit similar type of crime. Well, right or wrong, he of course couldn't have denounced Sharia (system of devising Islamic law) which is based on Quran and Hadith (sayings and doings of Mohammad). He looked too old for that.

Well, I told him upfront that I am an atheist and I believe neither in Allah nor in his Prophet. I am young and no word can be harf-e-aakhir for me; and I don't respect too many things. Worse, I doubt and ask lots of questions. Till date, I have not felt any particular need for religion, and as far as Islam is concerned, I see it as something very alien and something very very suffocating.

Finally, I assured him that I will still read a few of these books to know each other.

you become the one you hate

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil)

What an irony! A man is likely to become like the one who he hates, the one who he fights against. For instance, many of those who hate rioters become rioters themselves.

However, those who hate riots are less likely to become rioters. Those who fight monstrosity are less likely to become monsters. Perhaps that's why Gandhi asked his followers to love their enemies. Perhaps he saw his enemies as ailing people and he wanted us to hate their malady and not them.

The million-dollar question is - is that practical?

I don't know about that. I find it difficult to love my enemies. But what is told to be 'practical' may not be practical as well. Wrongs don't cancel each other, they just pile on.

I Defy? Not Anymore.

Defiance, just for the heck of it, is nothing but an another form of obedience. Defying is not freedom; it is a slavery. A man who obeys needs someone to obey. Similarly, a man who defies needs someone to defy. Each of them gets confused when he is left on his own.

Moreover, defying without value is perverse. Defiance has only a negative value - 'I don't' rather than 'I do'. And 'I don't' does nothing.

Defiance doesn't need courage; it needs recklessness. And it breeds what it needs - recklessness.

The spirit of 1st

A phoenix renews itself after every 500 years. It burns itself and from its own ashes it takes another birth, a new birth. Death marks a beginning of a new life, therefore there is something vital hidden in mortality.

A circle has no start and no end. But a running track has both, and both are same - the start and the end. When a runner reaches at the end, he takes a deep breath and pushes himself with a new energy for a new start. One end point pats him at his back and the other calls him forth, cheers him, challenges him.

Life, in many ways, is like running. A periodicity in it makes it less monotonous. A pat and a call makes it more exciting. A deep breath brings a gush of life with it, a fresh life, a new life.

The fate of 31st

2008 is not blind. He has eyes and he can see. He can see how people are treating the poor old 2007. Also, in his mind, he can look back and see the day when the same people had cheered and welcomed 2007. They had decorated their homes and greeted one another on his coming. They had thrown parties when he had arrived. It was not long back when they were running towards him with outstretched arms, hugging him and kissing him. How precious, how special, they had made him feel that night! And barely an year after that night, they can't wait for him to leave!

2007 will leave anyway. And he wouldn't ever come back. But it hurts to see people deserting him in the last moments. And they have not taken any effort to hide their impatience. It hurts to see how people carried other's luggage into his room while he was still packing. He wanted to scream - 'I am still here, I am not dead yet', but these things can not be said without looking ridiculous. And he doesn't want to look jealous either. He doesn't grudge a welcome party for 1st, but deep in his heart he did expect a few kind words of farewell for 31st.

But such is the fate of 31st that even his flowers seem to cause a delay the arrival of spring. He feels like an actor whose dialogs have been given to someone else, and who still has to stand on the stage for the time allotted to him, sweating in uncomfortable silence, freezing under unsympathetic gaze. As soon as he arrives, he is made to realize how eagerly people want him to leave! And when he departs, he hears the sound of crackers behind his footsteps.

2008 knows very well that it is not him who they embrace. It was not 2007 who they had embraced and it will not be 2009 who they will embrace. They embrace whatever is 'new' and he knows well no one has remained 'new' for long. He knows that he will also be sent like this - unceremoniously - wrapped in an ominous quiet, amid noisy wait for someone 'new'.

On Ambition

It's good for you if you like it, but do remember it's not there because you like it.

Economic growth is no longer a matter of choice. It's no longer optional. It's a political imperative. Similarly, and consequently, ambition is not optional for individuals anymore.

A tree that bears fruits is a good tree. An animal with a bulging udder is a good animal. The more fruit, the better the tree; the more the milk, the better the animal. 'Good' is a purely utilitarian concept, which reduces existence of a living being to mere usability. By the same token, if I don't have fruits, flesh or milk for others, and they tag me 'bad'. But why must it bother me? Do we live to please others? Perhaps yes. That's why we die to be good student in institutes, good employee in organization, and good consumer in market.

Do ambitious people live a better life? Or a more meaningful life? I don't think so. I don't think Alexander was great, and I don't think his life was meaningful. Ambition is just an acceptable and a more sophisticated term for greed. Fathered by a complex, it further fathers complex. It spreads like a communicable disease. That's what ambition is - a communicable disease.

Besides, I often feel that the ambition that we call ours is not really ours. We carry out someone else’s ambition like our own, and worse - at expense of our own. The question to be asked is – whose ambition is my ambition?

Coming back to growth, it's like love making or rape depending on the consent of the other. One is led to thinks why someone would be so much interested in others' growth? Whose growth is it?