Crime and Morality - some Incoherent Thoughts

The people of Champaran, my native place, may not have electricity in their houses but a good many of them are proud owner of things like VCD players, thanks to the porous Indo-Nepal border through which second-rate Chinese goods are routinely smuggled. The region has always taken pride in its being the entry point of Mahatma Gandhi's political career in India, and off late claims regular mention in national dailies for its innovations in kidnapping industry, which unfortunately is not doing very well because these days the hostages are not loved by their greedy relatives as much as the money that is demanded for them. However, relevant industry experience often opens conducive career avenues, most notably in local politics.

Though I am beginning to enjoy talking about this, I will come back to my main point - that the word Crime has quite a different meaning in Champaran. There exists a wide gap between legal crime and moral crime. Most of what is illegal is not immoral there. For instance, looting passengers in a running train is just being naughty. Your mother just twists your ear and then asks you to sit for the lunch. This example may sound rather extreme to you. But I have recently come to know that one of my own uncles had also done that - train robbery - when he was a naughty teenager. It could very well be a lie, because people take pride in saying such things. After all, our sense of pride is singular, just like our sense of crime.

There is a thin line of difference between business and crime - mixing salt with Urea and selling it in market is, technically speaking, a business. And the man who did this is a man of consequence today. Today he sits with other men of consequence and talks about honesty, hard work, and even spirituality. After all, with age, spirituality is a logical inevitability. When sight starts to blur, people start to see God. Till a man is young and virile, he plays other games. God is only a tired man's toy.

Crime is not sinful in Champaran. It is a philosophy in practice - child labor, quackery, smuggling etc are common affairs there. These things don't hurt our sentiments. What hurts our sentiments? What is not common? All the feminine values, like Love. The word itself sounds awkward in that region. If you translate it in local language, it sounds even more awkward. If it doesn't sound awkward to you, your ears are either used to hypocrisy or corrupted by B-grade movies. Others are not as shameless as you are, they get uneasy when they hear such words; the ladies grin and the gents walk out with their offended masculinity.

Proud are the parents whose son is obedient; no conditions apply. If the son is disobedient and decides to marry the one who he loves, it becomes very hard for his parents to breathe normally. What a shame! In case of daughter, it becomes even harder. Shame! Heart Attack!! Suicide!!! If you go on mixing salt in urea, nobody minds your business. But the community will surely mind your business if you dare to mix caste. Anything can be adulterated but the reverend caste; the reverend caste must stay pure, kept at a safe distance from the malicious influences of other caste. Mixing caste is a treason. And that's unforgivable!

Ultimately wisdom wins; reason prevails over passion. The traditional norm is to marry as per parents' wishes and then have your way later on. With age men are known to be more and more fun loving. And if a woman is smart enough not to get caught, even she can steal some fun from life. That is not a problem, as long as you keep your mouth shut, and remember the basic rules of discretion. Obedience is some sort of social etiquette, and people respect its dividends.


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

When it comes to morality, it's simple - a moral society consists of successful men and virtuous women. In Muslim societies, however, the other condition is - people must believe in the words of their Prophet, and follow his imperatives. However, rules are rationalized for successful men, as long as they are successful. For women, the conception of Holy Virgin summarizes it - do give birth to Jesus, but don't get laid. Sexual morality is not a subset, it is the super set of all morality. The root of your morality is located in your genitals, and its other branches stretch into your bank accounts.

With this sense of morality people feel a sort of contempt for call center employees. At the same time, they also feel envy from them. Interestingly, both the sister emotions are engendered by the common parent - rumor. The myth and mystery of the steamy call-center nights provoke wild imaginations in civil minds. And the frustrated civility of mind retaliates - if you can not get what they have, then deny them what you have. Don't regard them with respect. Spit on their face when they are around. In your heart, however, you know that it is not fair. You know that your assumed moral superiority is nothing but a face-saving compromise with your sad state of affairs, caused by lack of looks and/or lack of luck. Had you been lucky, you too would have dug your teeth deep in the meat of life and taken a big juicy bite from it.

Watching The Watchdog

Do read The Crime That We All Committed on Outlook. The author tries to imagine the agony and helplessness of a man who woke up one fateful morning to find his only child dead, murdered in his own safe house. Hard to believe, but what was to follow was even more traumatic. He was to be taken to the point of delirium. In front of his eyes, police poked his daughter's dead body by tip of boot, and media lifted her skirt to let everyone see what all lied in there. Before he could understand anything, his house was rummaged, every towel, every underwear was fished out, and every stain was publicly scrutinized. The poor girl was murdered again, and again, and again.

Before he could sit down and convince himself that his child was actually dead, before he could mourn his misfortune, and before he could say goodbye to her, he was dragged away from her dead body. And before he could collect himself, he came to know that he was accused of having an illicit relationship with his colleague, and he was accused of murdering his own daughter. Finally, he came to know that he was convicted for the crimes that he never could have committed. It all happened at a dizzying speed.

And when he got his senses back, he found himself locked in a dark, quiet, cell. The show was over. Everyone had left him. Everything was lost for him forever.


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

It has been observed that institutions tend to become inward-looking and self-serving with the passage of time. The pursuit of worthy goals is gradually, and unobtrusively, replaced by pursuit of power. Man is born blind, and power pushes him down the cliff.

In democracy, the corruption of institutions can be checked by keeping vigil, and by keeping people vigilant. And all this is carried out by another institution - media. Such is the importance of this that it is not wrong to state that the health of a democracy is directly dependent on the health of its media. So it is important to keep media healthy.

But being an institution itself, media too is open to all worms of corruption. And when media gets corrupted, everything falls out of place. The question here is - who watches the watchdog?

In a healthy democracy, the media is supposed to watch itself. Sadly, our media doesn't. Media is supposed to report the truth. Sadly, our media does everything but that - media men investigate the case, perform the autopsy, conduct the trial, pronounce the judgment, and finally execute the convict, live on camera. They distort facts, speculate, sensationalize, and goof-up everything.

They mix truth with fiction in such a way that it's hard to know what is what. The show becomes a reality and the reality becomes a show. Someone's life becomes a reality show. Man consumes news, and news consumes Man. Media hunts down one of us everyday to entertain rest of us. Media hunted Dr Talwar and we consumed him. And even that became a reality show!

Imagine the fate of our democracy - while what is public is carefully kept private, the private is exposed publicly. We don't have news anymore, all we have is gossip-mongering, all we have is voyeurism. Camera takes us into others' bathrooms and bedrooms, shows us their diaries and letters, and peeps into their salary accounts. We the people need entertainment, a hell lot of it. Anything is fine with us as long as it entertains us. And such is the depth of our boredom that anything entertains us. Media managers mint money while we swill countless glasses of spurious entertainment.

But who cares? The entertainment-hungry people? Or the profit-hungry media? At least the media doesn't. The loyalty of media managers is towards TRP alone. The days when media consisted of men with character and values are long gone. Now media is a thriving industry that recruits thousands of third class loafers who are out only to climb ladders, at any cost. Most of them have absolutely no idea what journalism stands for; and they are ready to fall for everything. That's why most of them are seen running after the cars of celebrities like street dogs. That's why they strip their decency on drop of hat, and with equal equanimity they disrobe others of their dignity too, as they recently demonstrated in this case. High on their collective power, they stagger on and trample on everything that comes in their way, with assured impunity.

Media is too important to us, too important to be allowed to run astray. We need them back on track. So it is high time media was given a tight slap hard on their face. It is high time some character and some discipline is brought back to them. It is high time they were reminded of their responsibilities. And if they choose to disregard their responsibilities, they not only forfeit the rights that they enjoy but also face legal consequences. They must be accountable to the people, and they must not breach the boundary of social contract.

Let the media be free; let the media have their say, as long as they respect the social contract, and as long as they mention what is it that they are saying- whether it is news, opinion or mere speculation. They must not mix up things. In any case, Aarushi case must never be repeated in future. Those who hold camera must know well that they too are being watched.

The Dark Knight

After all, it was a Hollywood movie!

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

America is a bright student of std IV, and India is a poor student of std XI. Most of what America talks is childish, but that rings with confidence. India, unsure of what it knows, on the other hand, stammers when opens its mouth, and looks pretty stupid.

I had read in a review on IMDB that this movie explores literary themes. It was this that lured me into watching this movie. I do not attach much expectation with a typical Hollywood movie. And I hardly bother myself with most of them. But being right at the top of all time great movies is no joke. Well, it is a joke, but I didn't know that till yesterday, when I found myself at the wrong end of the joke.

This movie does explore literary themes, but at std IV level. This movie is an adaptation of a batman comic, and a good adaptation indeed, but of a comic strip only, not of a Tagore or a Tolstoy. It was foolish on my part to expect anything more than comic literature. But I did, and that costed me Rs 120/-, 3 weekend hrs and 1 liter of petrol.

The antics of the villain - Joker - were not funny. They were sometimes boring, and sometimes very boring. He plays role of a psychopath, but he fails to inspire fear. The reviews had led me to expect a devil of a villain but despite all his witty one-liners he doesn't look very sharp. With all paint, plaster and slurps, he looks rather disgusting than intimidating.

In fact, the hero looks more intimidating with his fleet of cars and women. He, and his alter-ego - Batman, can do whatever they fancy thanks to the mind-numbing gadgets devised by their Research and Development team. And when someone can do whatever he wants, it doesn't awfully matter who he is up against. It does, from a moral standpoint, but not otherwise. There is nothing heroic in not having limitations. It's easy to be a hero when nothing is at stake and nothing costs much. The point is that there was no genuine contest between good and evil. There was no genuine temptation, no genuine dilemma, and no genuine despair. The whole game was made-up, and poorly made-up.

Actually, apart from disproportionate dependence on science and finance, and lack of art, the main problem with American movies is externalization of Evil. Americans film-makers almost feel a scatological compulsion to import enemies - either Russians, or Koreans, or Chinese, or Iranians, even aliens, and now psychopaths - to make movies. They fail to see the evil in their own society. They fail to see their enemies in themselves - in their ignorance, in their insensitivity, and in their paranoia. They fail to explore situations that generate moral conflicts in a normal Man, in each one of us. And that's why most of their movies are childish, of std IV level, this one being no exception. "The Dark Knight" is hopelessly Hollywoodish - again with a petty theme set on grand stage.

And Bollywood worships Hollywood! It's interesting to see how disgracefully we behave under the influence of inferiority complex!

Rating - 5/10

Aawara Hoon

1. 15 Aug --> A bike trip to Coorg is on the way. If no one gives me company, I'll do an ekla chalo re. That's the meaning of independence, isn't?

2. Konkan --> By the way, what was I doing in Pune for two years? Nothing by the way, except being a passive part of a trip to Ratnagiri! Am I forgetting something? Anyways, how about riding from Mangalore to Goa? Sounds interesting, isn't?


3. Summer of 2009 --> I am going to buy a Royal Enfield ThunderBird TwinSpark next year. Well, it's not only about buying, it's about deserving also. And I think I deserve a T'Bird. Why? Because I'm going to fly all the way to Laddakh next summer.

4. Rajasthan --> Bikaner, Jaisalmer, and Udaipur. Desert Safari. wow! Rohit, I am coming! Post summer 2009 any weekend. And for a change, by car this time. :)

5. Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh --> Next in line is North-East. No plans have been made as of now, but winds swing in the direction of their moods, blowing everything with them. Who knows when the winds will start blowing eastwards?

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


Long time no sight seeing, and no sight shooting either. I must have forgotten the password of my flickr account. This birthday, I have gifted myself a Canon Powershot IS S5; it's time to take the camera out of cover. Enough of march past! Time to throw the uniform and put something cheerful on. Time to wander again, head heavy with dreams, feet dancing along the dreamy way.

On Religion

What makes a man a man - eyes, or tears?

Man can see, though he can not see enough. But he can feel. He can feel pain, not only his own but of others as well. And that - compassion - makes him a man. Not efficiency, for efficiency makes him a machine, a robot.

Man has five senses. He could have more but he has five only. Some have fewer than five. There are institutions to take care of their handicap. Similarly some men can not think, or they can not think enough. They are entrusted to mental hospitals, or prisons.

Religion is another asylum, which is made for the spiritually handicapped - those who lack sensitivity, those who need to be told that killing is sin.

What's There in Name?

I am an experiment. Who conducts this experiment? - Nature. Wind blows over sea, and thousands of ripples take place.

I am also like one of these thousand ripples. From the water I was raised, and in the water I shall fall. What am I? Who am I? Am I an entity? Or an event?

A sea is always the same, though it is never the same. What is this - a paradox, or just our ignorance, our misunderstanding of things? Sea always changes, it always happens, but it never becomes. I also happen. I am a human being. Or a human becoming?

What is being - a noun, or a verb, or both? Perhaps a verb has been given a name.

And with name comes the illusion of identity, and ego. I know it, but my vanity refuses to understand. I keep on trying to be significant. I forget that I can not be more significant than I already am.

Is Geeta Heartless?

Life is a riddle to man. And to solve this riddle, Krishna preached Geeta, which is a riddle in itself. It is more than what it says literally. It requires a Guru to be explained. It requires an understanding to be understood. In short, the answer poses another question, which needs to be answered. But doesn't this defeat the whole purpose? Had Arjun been as wise as Krishna, Krishna wouldn't have wasted his words on him. Krishna must have recognized his limitation, and that's why he began to talk at first place. He should have taken efforts to minimize the scope of ambiguity and confusion. Did he do that? That's the question.

Geeta assumes existence of a certain soul. It dismisses the body, and celebrates the soul. But why do we care so much about soul? After all, it's body that we know. We know our mother by her face, and not by her soul? It is the look of her face that gives us solace. Those who don't see their mother' face don't find comfort in the fact that soul can never be killed.

Does the philosophy of Geeta help when we need it most? It does stimulate our mind, but does it soothe our heart? Don't we find it too intellectual to be human? Don't we find it rather heartless?

What is essentially masculine?

"And what is essentially feminine?", Miss Angelie Multani questioned us in one of the lecture sessions of "Drama:Integration and Alienation", the last humanities course that I had attended in IITD.

I had no idea what to say. So I didn't say anything.

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

Astrology says that cancer men have pronounced feminine traits since 1. moon, cancer's ruling planet, is a feminine planet, and 2. water, its element, is a feminine element.

If men can have feminine traits, and so can planets and elements, we can logically infer that femininity has little to do with female gender. What is femininity then, if it is not female sex? How is it defined? Is it defined as a set of values, which has been compiled by a poet to praise his muse or by a powerful patriarch to rule his mass?

According to the common definition, femininity implies receptivity, passivity, emotions, patience etc. The opposite values - aggression, activity, reason, energy etc constitute masculinity. Yin and Yang complement each other, and complete the Tao.

If femininity has little to do with female gender, what has it to do with women? Why must a woman exhibit feminine traits?

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

People often say that it is a male-dominated world. But world can only be male-dominated, it can not be female dominated, because domination is a masculine trait.

Don't get me wrong here. Wait a while before you brand me MCP. I am not justifying male-domination. Moreover, male-domination does not always mean female-subjugation. A male can and does dominate another man in this male-dominated world. The more he dominates, the more masculine he becomes.

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

Is Yin and Yang a cultural construct? Or there is any immutability in their definition? Is coyness is always feminine and ambition is always masculine? I am not sure.

Bollywood

Editor (TOI) - Suppose I tell you my readers aren't interested in this stuff.

P. Sainath - When did you last meet your readers to make any such claims on their behalf?

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

Bandini was a hit. Mother India was a hit. Anand was a hit. Hum Aapke Hain Koun was a hit.

On the other hand, Neel and Nikki was a flop. Julie was a flop. Still our Miss India - Neha Dhupia - found her reasons to make a claim that only sex and SRK sell in India. For an actress, she indeed seems to have some understanding of sales, nay, some magic formula.

Not surprisingly, she is not a sales consultant. And she might have known that her magic formula was nonsense. She was merely trying to justify the supply by inventing a corresponding demand. Also, she was trying to suggest that supply merely follows demand, merrily forgetting that supply arouses demand as well. She used an apparently plausible but actually sloppy logic as a smokescreen to hide from her responsibility as an artist. She was blaming the audience for being vulgar; but it was she who was selling herself naked, not the people. She forgot that if lust is vulgar, so is greed. First she acted in a bad taste, and then she reacted in a bad faith. Anyways, we forgive her and go ahead on our discussion.

Given the percentage of big-banner flops every year, it is highly unlikely that any such magic formula exists. And even if it does, it is hard to believe that it is known to the film-makers, let alone actresses.

To conclude:- the-audience-want-this-and-not-that argument is rubbish. This argument suggests reversal of the order in which events actually take place. Actually, it is demand that follows the supply and not the vice versa. The audience doesn't have resources to design their desires. Moreover, nobody knows or tries to know what the audience wants. The real reason for the ongoing trend in film-making is something else. We will find out what is that.

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

There are three main aspects of Cinema - Art, Craft, and Commerce.

And there are two types of film-making.

1. The first type involves the application of craft to achieve an artistic end, while keeping commercial constraints in mind. Cinema, as a medium, needs commerce for its existence. However, it doesn't exist for commerce. It exists for people who are involved in it.

Film-makers like Raj Kapoor, Gurudutt, Bimal Roy belonged to this class.

2. The second type involves single-minded pursuit of profit. Films are only the means, not the ends of their business. And art is only incidental to it. Commerce exists for itself.

The likes of David Dhavan, Karan Johar etc can be put in this category.

No matter how paradoxical it sounds, the first type did not exist before the advent of the second type. In fact, it was the second that lend an identity to the first. We will come back to this point again.

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

Kaagaz Ke Phool was a flop. Mera Naam Joker was a flop. Silsila was a flop. Lamhe was a flop.

Judwa was a hit.

The only pattern we see here is randomness. Since there is no known correlation between economic returns and (lack of) quality of movie, it is only reasonable for us to assume that film-makers will choose the first type of film-making, and reject the second type, in favor of their innate artistic passion. That would allow them to do what they always wanted to do, without affecting the economics of film-making. What else would a film-maker ask for?

Reality, however, is ironically opposite to logic. Most of the contemporary film-makers choose the second type. We wonder why?

The possible reason could be - 1. lack of will, 2. lack of skill, or 3. both.

I vote for the 3rd option - both (2nd following the 1st).

The mediocrity is systematically nurtured so that the whole generation of mediocre starlets survive, and prosper.

That sounds pretty sensational. Now the question is - who would nurture mediocrity, and why?

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

The story goes like this -

The 1st generation film-makers left the comforts of home and security of job to follow their heart. People with passion and values, they added value to the film industry. Whenever they faced any occasional conflict between the interests of art and that of commerce, they decided in the interest of cinema. Their sincerity and loyalty to cinema laid the foundation of the Hindi Film Industry.

The subsequent generations of film-makers inherited a legacy. And they were in no mood to let go of it for any ideals of cinema. They wanted to cement their dominance on the industry.

Art could favor the artists, but commerce was to favor them alone. And when art was not loyal to them, why should they be loyal to art? To hell with loyalty!

They began their business. When they faced conflicts, they based their decisions on the cold logic of commerce, which finally led to the split of Hindi Cinema into two types - Art or parallel cinema, and Commercial or mainstream cinema. There was no such division earlier, and there is no such division anywhere else! However, art was exiled from the mainstream commercial cinema. What remained there was a body without a soul.

What remained there was Bollywood.

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

There are two ways of doing a thing - artfully, or artlessly. Bollywood was defined by artlessness. Bollywood means artlessness. We have seen that artlessness was one of the very guiding principles on which Bollywood was founded.

Bollywood is a system in which actors like Balraj Sahni, Sanjeev Kumar, and Nargis not only look out of place but also look ridiculous. They are not needed anymore. Nobody wants them anymore.

With time, the very need of talent has been obviated from film-making. And when talent is not needed, talented are also not needed. Outsiders stay outside the studio. The gates have been closed for everyone except for those who are already inside.

The people of India, who are well accustomed to Caste in social and Dynasty in political system, don't seem to mind Monopoly, or Star System, in Bollywood.

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



Finally, here is a glimpse of Bollywood.

Just like an eye-catching ad is made to launch a product, a ramp-show like Dhoom is organized to launch a star.

In a typical Bollywood scene, Chopra Jr. alias 'Ali', who is a bike mechanic in a Mumbai sub-urb, races a swanky super-bike in some foreign location. He finishes first, pumps his fist, and hops off in style, with his Gucci gogs on. As soon as he is spotted, hundreds of white babes cheer loudly and rush after him. The poor guy senses their intent and runs to save his modesty, but gives in after a while.

And then the lucky boy begins to parade the babes around like some fashion hot-shot in his sunny days. In the next scene he is seen rocking-n-rolling in a jazzy disc, where barely-clothed babes writhe their hips, and bounce their breasts in a lewd abandon, before the gawky eyes of masturbating men. For the ladies, our boy thrusts his pelvis back and forth and winks "Excuse me to please".

That's entertainment for you and your family - shakes, thrusts and "Excuse me to please". Now please don't cringe, my good friend, and don't frown. I have written only what you watch. I have written only what you do. Nothing else.

Since Chopra Jr. can not act, the very need of acting is done away with a suitably written script, or suitably borrowed script, in which the character, his dialogue, and his emotions are reduced to the level of a comic strip. After that, an army of technicians is hired to show his biceps, and hide his face, which looks clueless throughout. Camera takes care not to stay on his face for more than a few seconds, so that the illusion of acting is maintained. Finally, to match the level of the script, the whole film is reduced to the level of comic strip - Excuse me to please.

Chopra Jr. represents a premise, around which a system of anti-thought has been developed. This system of anti-thought has been expanded to take up the entire mental space so that no scope is spared for alternative thought. Now it is hard for us to imagine an actor without a six-pack, and a movie without a stage and a Dard-e-Disco. It is hard for us to imagine Hindi Film Industry without Bollywood.

When life asks "to be or not to be?", it sets a time limit as well. If someone continues to be an idiot, life doesn't have time to waste itself on him. After the bollywoodization of Hindi Film Industry, we find ourselves at a stage where Dard-e-Disco is no more a choice; it's the only possibility remaining.

The Human Value of IT

Who needs Democracy? Who wants us to vote?

Well, definitely not the King.

The King would rather have us work, pay our taxes, watch TV, and fall asleep. Our slumber suits him. In fact, he takes elaborate pains to put us to sleep, and to keep us asleep. It is for us to keep ourselves awake. It is for us to ask questions and demand answers. It is for us to empower ourselves.

We Indians believe that freedom is our birthright, just because we got it from birth. We believe that freedom is natural. Perhaps we have forgotten that freedom had not come freely to us. We must understand that it is something that must be valued, and protected from the predators. We can not afford to lose it. We can not give it back to the King.

Our basic claim on freedom begins with a realization - that our votes are important, and a conviction - that we must cast our vote. In every election, we must proclaim that we are awake, loudly and clearly. There is nothing idealistic in it. In fact, nothing could be more practical than voting for freedom.

But what if the problem is external to the voter and inherent in the voting process?

Many of us, despite our convictions, are unable to cast our vote. We work at various corners of India, and even abroad. We are often unable to go to the ballet box. The systematic constraint of physical presence of voter systematically keeps many of us away from elections.

We can not go to the ballet box. Can ballet box be brought to us?

Technology can solve some of our problems. And those problems need not be specific to business or industry only. Technology can solve social problems as well. For instance, take the Flush System - the invention of flush system has contributed more to the emancipation of untouchables than all the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi.

I was just wondering if it is possible for the election commission to conduct the elections online. IT has facilitated e-commerce - net banking, online shopping etc. Though all this has been done in the domain of business, there is no reason why the advantage of technology can not be extended to politics. There is no reason why each one of us, who want to vote, can not vote.

How's that?

On God

There are two type of God - A. one that exists, and B. one that doesn't exist.

From the perspective of faith, men too are of two type -

1. philosophers - those who believe in the-God-that-exists, and those who don't believe in the-God-that-doesn't-exist,
and
2. poets - those who don't believe in the-God-that-exists, and those who believe in the-God-that-doesn't-exist.

Man is combination of these two types - pragmatists and idealists, and his mind is a battlefield of beliefs and disbeliefs.

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

- Do you believe in God?

- Don't you feel that this question is irrelevant to us?

- No.
- OK. Which God are you talking about - the one who has created us, or the one whom we have created?
- Well, the former one.

- Do you mean the latter is different?

- Yes.

- OK. And how do you know the former?

- Common sense - the world can not be created without a creator?
- By the same logic, the creator can not be created without another creator.

- Nice logic. But unlike language, God is not limited by logic. He is beyond logic.

- Then don't you think that He should be kept out of language, and our discussion?

- And out of our meditation as well?

- Depends. But thinking about gravity doesn't help the falling man.

- Do you mean to say that God is indifferent to Man?

- Decide that for yourself. Or take a survey if you please. But we can not meditate upon something we don't know. We can not meditate unless we have an object of meditation. Besides, our knowledge is limited by our senses. How can we know Him if He wants to hide Himself from us?

- It's not as simple as you think. Moreover, do you think man can survive without God?

- Now which God are you talking about - the one whom the philosopher-king has created?

- Yes.

- I don't know. Depends. Tell me - does faith makes a man a better man?

- I think so.

- I wish it were true.
************************************************

God represents Man's weaknesses.

The-God-that-exists (or God that we know of) is omnipotent - He can do things that Man can only imagine. He is not limited by Man's limitations; or is He? Doesn't He suffer from Man's weaknesses?

Even He is not above His ego. He is justice for all, yet it is well-known that He has soft corner for his devout worshipers, even if they are law-breakers. Flattery, in any language, is music to His divine ears. Like Man, even God is helpless before ego massage.

Even He gets angry once in a while. And when he gets angry, He also wants self-affirmation. He wants blood - to pacify him, something 'dear' needs to be sacrificed. No wonder every religion has rituals having animal sacrifice, where the poor animal is a mere token of something 'dear'.

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

God represents Man's ignorance.

The-God-that-exists explains everything that Man can not. He fills all the gaps in Man's thoughts. And the more the gaps, the more the God.

Man can not understand randomness. He can not understand injustice done to him. He feels nervous amid all the chaos around him. God gives an order to the chaos. He has laws of Karma or the day of judgment, taking care of all the iniquities on earth. He consoles Man, soothes Man, and makes things tolerable.

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

to be continued...

Food for Melancholy Mood

RDB sounds rather mellowed when he croons Gulzar's verses. His tunes remain 'youthful', somewhat pedestrian, but retain the essential elements of music - melody, mood, and timelessness.

If blue is color of your mood, play them on. Melancholy can't sound any better. Here are my favorite 9 Gulzar-RDB blues.

Libaas - Khamosh Sa Afsaana (Lata & Suresh Wadkar)

Jeeva - Roz Roz Aankhon Tale (Asha & Amit Kumar)

Sunny - Jaane Kya Baat hai (Lata)

Sitara - Yeh Saaye Hain (Asha)

Kinara - Naam Gum Jaayega (Lata & Bhupindar)

Ijaazat - Mera Kuchh Saamaan & Khaali Haath Shaam Aaayi Hai (Asha)

Masoom - Tujhse Naaraaz Nahi Zindagi (Anup Ghoshal)

Namak Haraam - Main Shayar Badnaam (Kishore)

Delhi

Delhi is a modern city - fast and big.

In Delhi, people are big and their life is fast. They don't have time for small things.

Delhiites talk, they talk fast, and they talk big. They are smart, and they have mastered the art of outsmarting others. It is hard not to be awed by their look, as long as they keep their mouths shut. The problem with them is, that they can not.

It doesn't take long to identify a pattern in their thought and their talk. And as soon as it is identified, they lose their luster.

Delhiites talk only in terms of nouns - names and numbers; to be precise - big names and big numbers - this big company and this big package. If you meet someone who unashamedly shows off, you know where he is from. Their mouth perpetually stench with big rotten nouns that they chew like cud. They go on spitting big drops of nouns at your face without realizing how repulsive they and their ridiculous nouns are.

But they are helpless, and hopelessly limited in their range. They can not talk anything else, anything beyond big names and big numbers, even to save their honor. This is what they have done all through their life - show off. They eat branded food in branded joints, wear branded undies (and they somehow show it off), watch branded soaps, work with branded firms, draw branded salaries, and fuck branded sluts. This is how life is to be lived - on a grand scale! Since 99 out of 100 Delhiites lack resources to live a grand life, they just brag to glory. When they open their mouth, they brag. They can really teach you how to put up with unabashed bragging.

If something doesn't have a display value, it's useless. Everything is a showpiece - girlfriend is a showpiece, body is a showpiece, love is a showpiece, education is a showpiece, the whole life is a showpiece. Things are good if they are branded, and better if exotic. No wonder Salsa is 'in'. Even Jesus Christ is 'in'.

But don't ever call a Delhiite wannabe. It is his exquisite aesthetic sense and not his petty bourgeois aspiration that draws him to the 'in' things. He claims to have a taste too. And why not? When he has money, he must be having taste as well. Who dare argue with Money?

Ask a typical Delhiite to speak for 2 minutes on anything that he runs after - whether it is Salsa, or Jesus Christ, and observe him. Most likely he will disgrace himself. Any sentence that starts with how or why exposes the inherent shallowness in them and makes them run for a cover. Sometimes even a what or a who is enough to trip them.

I often wonder what makes a Delhiite swagger? I absolutely fail to understand their characteristic arrogance, which looks quite awkward when paired with their characteristic mediocrity in each and every sphere of life (except, of course, dropping names and showing off branded undies). Tell me how many people Delhi has produced in last 100 years of its history who were worth the undies they wore? And it has guts to put itself in the league of Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, and Mumbai!

Name-dropping is easy, and this is something that marks a jerk in a group. Every jerk drops names. But going further takes character, and only exceptional people have guts to go further. Delhi systematically discourages anything of that sort.

Delhi teaches you just two things - how to earn money, and how to burn it. Everything else is irrelevant. Deep down in his heart, every Delhiite is convinced that it's alright to be a jerk as long as he is able to sponsor his weekend shopping.

He enrolls in branded courses in branded institutes and prepare himself for a branded life. Even his teachers keep things simple now, and they don't worry much about things like values of life. They leave these things in the custody of the invisible hand and busy themselves in issuing notices to parents that their daughters can not wear skirts below their knees.

But the size of skirt is not an issue, neither for girls nor for their parents. They might as well send their girls without skirts for all they care, as long as the school is branded.

A Delhiite takes things easy, unless he is in traffic. He is cool, he is a jerk, and he goes on to pretend that it is cool to be a jerk. It's cool to be oblivious of what's happening around, and it's cool to misspell words. Also, he expects you to understand this. If you refuse to take part in this game, you are uncool.

Delhi is basically a market, and only two words are important there - shopping and money. In Delhi, every road ends at shoppers' stop. When a Delhiite doesn't shop, he prepares for shopping. He prepares in school, in college, in his company, in his solitude, and even in his dreams. Every occasion is seen from a shopping point of view - puja shopping, wedding shopping, honeymoon shopping, even hospital shopping. It's shopping that makes an occasion an occasion. His mind is an endless list of shopping items, and his home is a gallery. His consumeristic needs urge him to see any junk that is broadcasted, listen to any junk that is aired, and buy any junk that is sold. His shopping logic mocks at taste and discrimination. He thinks only in terms of points he earns in shoppers' stop.

And while most of his needs are imaginary, the costs he pays to fulfill these imaginary needs are real. Is this not insanity - paying real cost to fulfill imaginary needs? Is it sane to waste entire life sponsoring insanity?

Delhi's climate, in every sense of the word, is notoriously hostile. If you want to save yourself, if you want to live a meaningful life, leave Delhi at once. Otherwise nothing will ever catch your imagination except those silly ads that you see in TV.

What else do you expect to get in market anyway - Truth, Beauty, or God? Well, even they are sold in market - but all synthetic - synthetic truth, synthetic beauty, and synthetic God - and all dead! Can you see how dangerous this place is? This place is an arid desert, where man is running amok with thirst and all he gets is false promise; all he gets is a shadow, a mirage. Man dies, but not his cravings. What else is Hell?

What are you waiting for? Leave this God forsaken place or you will end up doing what thousand others do - collecting branded undies* and showing them off to all and sundry.

'Delhi' is a corruption of thought, a mental disease, and Delhiites are walking insane infected with this disease. 'Delhi' is a virus that eats the very spirit of man and makes him a raving show-off. In 'The Matrix', they pull out this malicious device from Neo's body by a hi-fi machine. Do we have any machine like that?

But cure comes later. Despite numerous symptoms, the sick keeps on denying the diagnosis. He is blind to facts. He is blind to truth. He can not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with the very idea of Delhi. It's maddening - a doctor kills his daughter**, a chartered accountant kills his wife (thankfully he didn't put her in tandoor), someone rapes kids, eats them and bury their bones, someone shoots a woman in a bar because she refuses to serve liquor after closing hour, someone rapes a medical student in broad daylight, someone rapes an embassy official barely 5 kms away from the Parliament, some teenager shoots his own classmate... oh I feel tired now. The newspapers burn with such headlines but nothing seems to scandalize, sensationalize, sensitize or even surprise us anymore. Is this state of mind normal?

Delhi might offer its explanations but who's interested in explanations! The fact remains that these offenders are not professional criminals. They are not outsiders. They are like us, they live in our colonies, and they hold our kids in their arms. Many of them are educated and sophisticated people, who work with MNCs, watch 'HBO' and read 'Time' in leisure. And this fact suggests that something is terribly wrong with the value system of Delhi, if they have any. Delhi doesn't need explanations, it needs an introspection. It needs a cure.

Let's have a look at one of the most BIMARU states - Bihar, vis-a-vis Delhi.

What's ailing Delhi is not what's ailing Bihar. The malady of Bihar is Indian, but the malady of Delhi is American. The malady of Bihar is caused by politics of caste and scarcity, but the malady of Delhi is, apart from patriarchy, driven by excess and relentless pursuit of excess. It's a bit comic but I can't even laugh at it.

There is a hope for Bihar. Bihar needs some political will to put the economic machinery at place. And sooner or later, with effective governance, it'll come out of its misery. But what hope we can have for Delhi? How much education and how much wealth it would take to restore sanity in Delhi?

It is outrageous that the whole nation is made to bleed in order to make Delhi look photogenic. But Delhi's ugliness can not be hidden by any make-up. Every now and then the make-up melts, and something hideous shows up, embarrassing the whole nation. In fact, with all that cosmetics smudged over its dirty face, Delhi looks positively grotesque. The bitter truth is that no matter how much it develops, Delhi will always remain undeveloped. Because it is a civilization that stands out only for lack of civilization.

No. Cosmetics is no substitute for health and hygiene. Delhi should go wash its face before doing the make-up. Delhi must realize that it doesn't suffer from deficiency, it suffers from excess. And the irony of excess is a tastelessness followed by an acidity. It's high time Delhi decided the upper limit of its greed and profligacy, which is the reason for all its malady and sufferings. It's time Delhi learned to say a resounding 'No' to salesmen like Sachin and SRK. Delhi should learn to stop sometimes, sit out in the open for a while and look at the moon in the sky. If they do it, they will be cured.

The only problem with Delhi is Delhiite himself. And the problem with Delhi is, alas, that Delhiite doesn't understand this. He doesn't even listen, he just talks smart and shows off his branded undies. After some time, when he doesn't feel entertained anymore, he turns on some third class music at some unforgivable volume and zooms off in his swanky car. You just wish he reaches home safe. After all, it's Delhi.

* undies:- metaphor for anything private, which is irrelevant in public domain - it could mean anything from undies (literally) to electronic gadgets.

** Shame media, shame. Shame on you.

Role of IT in India

Revenue - Cost = Profit

Most of the decisions that are made have economic reasons, as long as political interests don't come into conflict.

Profit is the ends of whatever happens in industry, and the means are, among other things, 1. Technology and 2. Management. Every endeavor is directed to maximize the revenue and minimize the cost.

In this profit-centric ecosystem, things like ecological balance may go to hell.

Modern Industry is characterized by Speed and Scale. Every industry is like every other industry - they all want to grow, they want to grow fast, and they want to grow infinitely.

Most of the problems, from personal to social to ecological, are directly and indirectly caused by this speed-scale mania. Growth is not as innocent a word as we take it to be.

Growth means growth of production, which necessarily means growth of consumption, and which necessarily means growth of market (enter the agents of business - WTO, World Bank, IMF etc with non-stop open-yourself mantra, and the 24 * 7 sales representative - Media - since what is produced has to be consumed, demand is identified and even invented to match the growing supply. enter Aishwarya Rai.)

Also, the economy of scale ensures an inversely proportional relationship between scale and cost, so setting any upper limit on production is illogical in this premise. Organizations strive to expand their business, become multinational, outsource their work and acquire firms in order to reduce the cost of production. Sometimes the pursuit of cost reduction goes slightly overboard - when the need to control the means of production leads to war.

If you ignore war, all this business usually looks pretty harmless. But it is anything but harmless. For every commodity that is made in factory, existence of a market is essential. To consume the ever growing supply of junk food and junk entertainment, our homes have become market. For weapons and bombs to be consumed, places like Afganistan where nothing else can be sold have been made market. If they can not dump their goods, they dump their bombs!

Urban India is an expanding market - dumping ground - for expanding supply of junk food and junk entertainment. Rural India, since it doesn't have purchasing power to save itself, gets shiploads of imported nuclear waste piled on it year after year. Did you know that our governments allow this - dumping nuclear waste on our land? I will not be surprised if you didn't - gone are the days when newspapers used to wake us up. Now media sings lullabies. So switch on your TV, watch Sachin playing between breaks, in which he does the real thing - sell Coca Cola.

Technology speeds up things. It all began with the advent of assembly line and now, thanks to the development in Information Technology, things happen faster than ever. Investment bankers earn millions of dollars for their organizations with click of buttons. Manufacturers launch new models of car or mobile phone in months instead of years. No wonder we get to see new products everyday.

However, the text-book of economics talk about free market and* ...

*this is an incomplete post.

Nausea

When I was preparing myself for higher studies in Economics, I was often made to face this sphinx-like question - Capitalism or Communism? And I had no answer ready.

Modernity is said to be based on Reason. But behind the facade of Reason, there has been a lust for Power, and power is procured by twin-procurers - 1. Technology and 2. Economy of Scale. Under the auspices of Growth (a hope, or a madness, or a mad hope?), there has been the same lust for Power, which sailed and soared with East India Company, soon unmasked its ugly face with advent of Hitler and then went berserk in Hiroshima. But even that was not the end. Despite collective disillusionment and shame, the juggernaut of modernity still rolls on, and little can be done to check its movement.

Why should this bother me now? This bothers me simply because it has a direct bearing on our life and our lifestyle. We do have alternatives but the cost of choosing is so high (scale, you see!) that you and I are practically left with no other choices. The door of this cage is open but we still can not run away. We have to stay inside and struggle for things we hardly care about.

There are always some incidental beneficiaries of a change, and they welcome the change even though the change was not made keeping them in mind.

Modernity needed people, men and women, for its factories and its shops, to produce and to consume, on a big, and growing, scale. The power-shift was to take place, and for its own reasons it was in no mood to put up with any nonsense of past that threatened to retard its progress. The creaking old system was ready to collapse and make way for the new system. Here enters Reason, which came handy to administer a coup de grace. Science came to reason away the dogmas of Church. And the liberals ideas of Democracy saw off monarchy to its grave. Bourgeoisie celebrated the mass release of the masses from the prejudices of tradition, unfortunately, though, for ends not entirely free from its evil. Unfortunately, traditional evil was only to be replaced by modern evil. However, people could not see the face of evil. They could not see the end of the road that lied ahead. They didn't have time to check whether there was any U turn ahead, and they forgot to check whether the brakes were working. They just boarded the wagon with a loud cheer.

Industrialization promised abundance. Everyone was to have everything. But with growth grew disparity among men. Poverty is by no means a modern phenomenon but now, when wealthy show-off their wealth, the poor see their poverty more clearly and feel it more bitterly.

Poverty doesn't mean lack of wealth. It does not mean not having what rich have - mobiles, cars and other waste of modern lifestyle. It means not having access to clean air and water, to fruits that trees bear, and to the other blessings of earth, which she showers on all. It means being deprived of the most fundamental human rights.

Disparity engenders discontent, and thus fosters hatred, crime and terrorism among marginalized. Rich often put the blame on poor but they forget that they are not only victims but also party to it. Legally or otherwise, they loot from outside and hoard in their houses. And the more the loot, the more the fear of being looted - result: anxiety, distrust, and high walls of isolation.

Finally, it has brought us face to face with the irony of excess - food is in plenty but it doesn't taste good anymore. It fills, but fails to fulfill. An undefined hunger still remains. And all we feel is nausea - from overdose inside, and from sight of beggars outside.

It is a zero sum game. Beggars are fallout of a system that produces millionaires. For mansions and palaces to exist, slums have to be there. Lullabies like trickle-down have lost their spell.

Modernity is a modern reminder of a Tragedy. The protagonist - Reason - fights away the mighty villains and returns proudly as hero, only to find out that he has been used by other villains to achieve their small purposes, on a big scale. He finds himself at receiving end of a practical joke. Fallen out of his ideals, he feels betrayed. He feels like a traitor. And he can do nothing but helplessly watch the wagon rattling on towards a dead end.

Coming back to the question of Capitalism and Communism, which doesn't seem sphinx-like to me anymore, it is clear that they are offspring of the same parent - Modernity. The only difference lies in the manner in which Capital (read Power) is said to be shared. The lust for capital remains the same, and so is the fetish for growth. Both are materialistic (thanks Sanket) to core and devoid of any element of spirituality. None can afford what I am after.

Identity

We often hear people talking about their 'identity'. They seek identity without knowing what it is and without even knowing whether it existed. Some get tired after sometime and get busy in life. Others think and make themselves miserable.

Identity is defined in contrast to surrounding, and so it separates one from one's surrounding. The more pronounced the contrast, the more defined the identity. Man loses his identity when he mixes with surrounding. Identity is not defined in isolation.

The understanding of identity is accompanied by rather unpleasant realization - of irreconcilable differences with others, impossibility of communication with others and an intense feeling of loneliness.

Man is conscious of his identity when he is placed in an unfamiliar surrounding. Even the most philosophically challenged man starts thinking about the question of identity when he finds himself in a foreign surrounding. He looks more visible to others, and to himself as well. And the more conscious he becomes of his identity, the more unfamiliar the surrounding looks to him.

Sometimes we assert our identity and sometimes we hide it from others, depending on situations and their payoffs. When our attempts are thwarted, we shout 'Identity Crisis' or 'Marginalization'.

I wrote so much without intending to do so. All I wanted to share was that I suddenly realized that I am rural in nature. I feel out of place in cities.

Stock Market

I found this forward interesting. Read On :-

Once upon a time in a village, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for Rs10.

The villagers seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at Rs10 and as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He further announced that he would now buy at Rs20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.

Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer rate increased to Rs25 and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it!

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at Rs50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on behalf of him.

In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers. Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will sell them to you at Rs35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell it to him for Rs50."

The villagers squeezed up with all their savings and bought all the monkeys.

Then they never saw the man nor his assistant, only monkeys everywhere!!

Welcome to the "Stock" Market!!!

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. :)