What is Success?

I think this an ever-pertinent question for all of us. I may have written and spoken about them at various points. Probably, my answer was different everytime. Doesn't matter!

Here's what I said today to one of my colleagues:

'For me, success is walking out of my office into the hallway and meeting some colleagues I genuinely like and in seeing the same feeling on their face.'

You may think why I define it this way. Do I want to make it easy for myself? There are so many other goals which are far more concrete, much more measurable.

Name and fame in the academic world. Publications, citations, promotions, awards, projects etc. these are all almost universally accepted as measures of success for academicians. I don't question their authenticity. I have spent a good portion of my career chasing them, fretting about them. Even now, I don't want to make any tall claim that I don't care about them anymore. Yet, other intangible, immeasurable goals have steadily gained in importance and have clearly surpassed the tangibles in their desirability.

Does it sound that I have chosen an easier goal from for myself? If you look at the number of people who achieve this versus those who achieve the tangibles, you will probably reconsider your opinion. In fact, in any place with people of high capability, genuine goodwill is as rare as pearl in an ocean. What you see are jealousy, unbridled ambition, high stress, conspiracy, secrecy and, at best, fake pleasantries.

These are all offsprings of hypercompetition which is an inevitable result of people desirous of something that's finite, and hence scarce, getting together at the same place. There can only be one director in an institute, one head in a department. If you got a paper selected in a prestigious venue, it's inevitably because your paper prevailed over several others. Each success is accompanied by countless failures, because the lower the probability of success the more desirable that success becomes.

Let me repeat that this alone doesn't make such successes bad. Their difficulty is also related to their inherent value. A director does important service for an institute and nation. An HoD plays an important role in shaping a department. An idea published in an influential venue has the potential of changing the world for the better. The real value of these achievements is in what they give to the world, not inherently in how many people desire for them.

The desirability or popularity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for inherent value. For example, having sex with an attractive model on Instagram may be a matter of desire for millions. Does that by itself make the attractiveness of that model an inherently valuable thing? I hope you are saying 'no', for that's definitely my answer. Einstein's discoveries may be inaccessible to all but a few in the world. Beyond what's available in popular media, most of us don't know him at all. His being one of the most famous scientists may evoke feeling of awe. Some of us who consider themselves mentally capable may develop aspirations of becoming a legendary scientist or intellectual like him. Yet, the pure beauty of intellectual pursuits is completely hidden from a vast majority of the world population. Does this make Einstein's work unimportant? So, does that convince you that public desire or popularity or high competition may be correlated with inherent value of something, yet it mustn't be mistaken to be analogous with inherent value?

Now, hopefully, you will allow me to argue more fervently in favour of my choice of the goals on the basis of which I intend to define success.

Genuinely liking somebody, especially in a space where you are heavily invested, where bars are implicitly high due to high density of talent making genuine and well-meant compliments and acknowledgement of contribution and talents harder to come by, is also very hard. Competition begets more competition, giving rise to a host of insecurities, jealousies and other forms of negativities. To aspire to experience genuine liking towards a fellow worker, with whom feeling competition and rivalry is much more obvious and is even tacitly encouraged by the prevailing professional atmosphere, is a non-obvious choice, so that's one thing.

There's one simple way to be universally likeable: become a stupid and an utterly useless person. That way, you are no more a threat to anybody. But that rules out the possibility of your being able to add any real value to the world with your existence. That's a choice one may make; but it's not a good one. Earning amicability by bartering the very point of being alive is hardly a good bargain. So, we are closing off this route too.

How do you experience and evoke amicable feelings in others while being busy trying hard to live a truly meaningful life? High performance will inadvertently bring in rewards: money, accolades, praise, power, even if you genuinely don't work for them. You can't stop them from coming, as you can't stop your rivals from noticing this and making you the subject of their jealousy. The only way this can be done is by becoming a cause of a major inner transformation among people who surround you.

In consequence of this transformation, your colleagues will be able to focus on the real, implicit value of your efforts and contribution rather getting consumed with jealousy. Such a fundamental transformation at a social level is unthinkable unless it actually takes root in yourself. It's vain and dishonest to preach a nobility that we ourselves fail to practice.

Therefore, the project of earning yourself a workplace full of genuine camaraderie and positivity is, more than anything else, an exercise in self-transformation and purification. To be able to do this is very hard and even more valuable - and hence a truly monumental success.

Dirt Strips on Our Roads

If you have recently been to one of European or North American countries and land back in Bangalore, the difference in the nature of the traffic is too stark to miss. There, it glides; here, it crawls. There are so many reasons for this. Here are some I can think of:

• There are simply too many vehicles and people in India
• Bad roads, i.e. potholes, uneven road width etc.
• Bad driving
• Lack of useful footpaths causing pedestrians to spill into the thoroughfare
• Hawker carts, taxis and vehicles parked within the edge of the road
• Commercial establishments built too close to the road
• Bad town planning which causes bottlenecks, e.g. ill-planned distribution of human establishments creating hotspots
• Bad traffic management

Many of the above are very difficult problems. We can't do much about our population. Most of the above need major replanning of cities, educating large multitudes of people about traffic sense, setting up surveillance and punitive structures and so on. This is very costly, and if at all possible in India's case, would take years to happen.

Road Dust

This post is not about all the above hard problems. It's about a problem which seems to me a much easier one to solve. It's the dust that accumulates on the edges of our roads. See this:

The light brown strip running along the road is earth settled on the road. Its width is over a metre. I wouldn't be surprised if this accounts for approximately 1/6th of the total road width. This part of the road is unmotorable and un-bicyclable. In short, this part doesn't get used at all, not even by pedestrians. In presence of such traffic woes, this is a colossal wastage of precious road width. They further choke the already woeful traffic, causing delays and accidents. If you are on a two-wheeler or a bicycle, this part has less grip than the rest of the road, making it dangerous. For bicyclists, its unusable because its uneven and rough, making it harder to pedal on them. When it rains, this part becomes slippery making it further dangerous to venture on them. And this is a very common sight on Indian urban roads.

And to the best of my understanding, this problem is nowhere close to as hard as all the above listed problems. With one cleaning operation done, I presume, even in a very dusty environment, it would stay clean for weeks if not months. The benefits are immediate and immense. It would free up that much width of the road, making it faster and safer to ply on. There are these dust sweeping trucks available which municipalities and Gram Panchayats can procure. They can share or rent these if they can't afford to own one. They can contract the task out to private parties. My guess is this won't be all that expensive. They already do this routinely in some of richer areas already.

I am telling something every road user knows well. Often, we don't say such things because we think it's too obvious, or that the authorities don't have the will to do anything about it. This time, I thought, let me just put this out for exchange of thoughts, and possible notice of pertinent authorities. Maybe, it's obvious. But it doesn't hurt anyone saying it anyway.

I request authorities to take notice and take a step. Doing something about it is easy and inexpensive, I think. One more thought (relevant to World Environment Day today). Please remove the dust off these roads and mark that part as cycling tracks. 🚴🚴🚴Automobile drivers are anyway not using this part in many places.

International Men's Day 2024

This is an ordinary member of human species. He is upper caste, belonging to the religious majority. He had a small town lower middle class upbringing and struggled unduly (though not the most) against lack of resources, information and finances to bring himself up in life. But since has spent much of adult life in large Indian cities, enjoying a middle-middle class economic status. He is English educated, digitally enabled. In his organisation, his role by default gives him 'a position of power'.

And he is male.

Ancestors of his caste enjoyed great privilege in society and wreaked unimaginable atrocities on people of lower caste. His country has been drifting towards reinforcing the privileges already enjoyed by the members of his majority religion, in the name of protecting the national heritage against real and imaginary foes out to get them and their glorious past. His digital ability, his access to English and his residence in a teeming metropolis give him much more access to information, collaborators and other resources to further widen the gaps between him and his fellows who may be a little less fortunate than him.

And he is male. Individuals of his type, for millennia, enjoyed incredible privileges, and caused inhuman suffering the other half of the human population. Right from small restrictions at home to political and religious rules, all were bent over time to strengthen this privilege, creating such distances and deep chasm between the two genders than any amount of effort to bridge that today is dwarfed by its enormity and depth.

And yet, he spends most of his waking hours in service. He teaches youngsters all day, not just professional skills, but ethical dispositions, like compassion and empathy. He worries about the havoc humans are wreaking on the planet -- men and women and all alike -- and tries to lead a minimalistic life, with unrealistic hopes but no presumptions that his puny efforts to saving the environment will contribute to reversing all the damage around him. He struggles to understand how women have been subjugated and discriminated against all these millennia when he finds them almost completely similar to men -- in intelligence, capability and of course meanness! In fact, he probably has more female friends and male. His students, his collaborators -- are as many women as man. And he and other well-meaning men like him in his organisation tremble under a not-at-all-imaginary threat of being wrongly implicated by POSH related policies, which, while unavoidable, are regularly weaponised by a section of disgruntled students against their teachers to settle scores. While the number of people who do this may be really tiny, the terror it creates indiscriminately affects almost all, just like rapes, molestation and eve-teasing. So, he and his likes understand what it is to lose the dignity that's earned (the only real earning for many like him) through a lifetime of good conduct, because of a freak accident or by an act of false defamation. In truth, he respects creatures of his and other species (including having voluntarily given up the practice of eating 'definitely sentient' animals early in his life). He is known in his circles to treat all -- men, women, non-humans, English speaking or otherwise, rich or poor, his nationality, religion or caste and others -- with equal respect, compassion and warmth. Quite against the stereotypes, he is not into sports, doesn't enjoy boisterous talk after getting drunk, is not crazy about cars and gadgets. Though he sometimes joins parties, he prizes his solitude. He loves the company of his family and is thoroughly 'domesticated'! He doesn't have specific colour choices, enjoys music, art and literature. He is very sentimental about relations, particularly friendship. Beautiful memories, thoughts, sounds and sights sometimes make his eyes wet.

And yet he is male, though not at all an alpha one. He is just an ordinary human being. And he is not a bad guy!

On this International Men's Day, let's resolve to try and set the statistics aside when interacting with an individual. Let's just try and treat people as people. When you say something mean to one man, e.g. 'Men are aggressive', 'men have fragile ego', 'women are more meticulous/organised/disciplined', 'men dominate in meetings', 'men only care about sex', 'what do men know about being discriminated against?' and hundred other things, are you sure you are not being biased and unfair to an individual, who come in all shapes and sizes; and thus going against exactly the principles of equality you are fighting for? Don't make the mistake of using statistics -- which are very useful but only on populations -- to hurt, dominate, persecute or demonise individuals. Because if we are serious about setting the statistics right, there's only one way that's gonna happen, when we work together as equal allies.

And guys (not all, but most of those I closely know)! You are doing fine. Though you are what you are notwithstanding anything, know that most women love you the way you are. Keep up the good work! Hold your head high. And uphold the values and virtues taught by elders (truth, compassion, mutual respect, fairness, honesty, simplicity, modesty, pursuit of excellence etc.) even higher. They are timeless and genderless.

And Happy International Men's Day!

Related post: Excesses of Feminism

A Harrowing Experience with our Medical Establishments

I will remember the entire former part of 2024 as an extremely busy episode for me. While it was partly caused due to professional commitments, the biggest contributor was my mom's health related issues. During the nearly 3 months she spent with us in Bangalore, we must have been in and out of various hospitals and clinics as many as 30 times. Probably more. This involved general health checkups, dental procedure, cataract surgery and gall bladder removal, all in the midst of an unrelenting professional routine. It left me completely drained.

But what I want to write about here is not the prolonged episode concerning my mom's case, but the brief one that followed it, concerning my wife.

All the necessary treatments and examinations had been done. My mom visibly looked better than when she had joined us in March. I was exhausted, but ready to heave sigh of relief, satisfaction, and even feel slightly proud of myself for having level-headedly handled the process. That's also when I was saying words full of praises about how professional the Narayana health system is: it's expensive, a bit too elaborate. But it instils trust in the heart of the patients and their caregivers.

That's when, one day, Shilpi, my wife, started getting high fever and vomiting accompanied with severe headache. Her BP readings were worryingly low. Our relative, who is a doctor, prescribed some antibiotics and other medicines, but also suggested that we shouldn't wait too long before we visited the hospital, if the BP readings didn't improve.

Our regular place to go in all health-related cases is the Narayana Clinic on Neeladri Road, Electronics City. It was a weekend and Narayana Clinic was closed. By Saturday afternoon, Shilpi's fever showed no signs of abetting, and she was almost screaming and delirious because of headache. It was a panic situation. And we headed off to Cauvery Hospital, a corporate hospital of significant scale and repute. We were taken in the emergency ward.

They put Shilpi on drip and started tracking her vitals. They also were pushing some drugs through IV, likely to bring down her fever and headache. There was a ward doctor handling the case. I still think all this was quite regular and the reasonable course of treatment in the given situation.

While they were still exploring the further course of treatment, we thought it right to mention a particular condition Shilpi had been suffering from for the last couple of months. Her prolactin levels had been found to be higher than normal a month or two before, and she was under medication for that. We shared this piece of information with the doctor in all good faith, assuming that more information is always better than less. However, this piece of information seemed to throw the whole diagnosis and treatment into a completely different direction. Suddenly, all symptoms started indicating a somewhat serious medical condition called prolactinoma - a tumour in the pituitary gland. An immediate MRI was suggested. Against meek and helpless protests from me, within an hour or so, Shilpi was undergoing head MRI scan! I will not easily forget those silent desolate hours I spent all by myself outside the radiology room wondering 'What just happened?'.

We came back home by around 11 pm. Shilpi's fever and headache had come down for now, most likely because of the medicines. The night went by uneventfully. We had our appointment with the hospital's neurologist the next day. So, we visited the hospital the next morning, collected our MRI reports and saw the neurologist. She said that there was nothing worrisome found in the scan. However, she thought, and sounded so confident, that it was migraine. She prescribed some migraine medicines. Great!

As for actions on our side, we were not yet done. Another symptom Shilpi was suffering in the day or two was some difficulty in passing urine. Next day, Monday, we visited our regular family doctor in Narayana Clinic. On hearing the entire story, our doctor ruled out migraine. Because of the urine retention, he suggested undergoing ultrasound scan of stomach. A blood test was also prescribed. Or were these suggested by the neurologist? I realise now that I am losing track of some of the details. However, I do remember the highlights.

The US scan report showed swelling in gall bladder. And some issues with the liver. The doctor said that these add up to a clear diagnosis of urosepsis -- that starts with a urinary tract infection which affects the kidneys, and eventually sends the body's immune system on an overdrive whereby it starts attacking the body itself, another serious medical condition which could turn potentially fatal. The doctor said that we should watch for symptoms like difficulty in breathing and tightness around chest. These would indicate that the condition is worsening. Otherwise, if things went well, the current course of antibiotics (suggested right in the beginning by our doctor relative) was adequate.

That night -- or rather the following early morning around 4 am -- Shilpi woke up saying she was feeling tightness around her chest and some difficulty in breathing. That was a meltdown moment for me! I panicked completely and didn't know what to do. I froze. We didn't do anything. Just slept away the remaining hours of the night.

The next day, we visited the doctor again. I think, by now the blood reports were in. So, the new diagnosis was dengue! We were sent back home with some medicines to help her urine retention and very little instructions. Rest. Check your platelet count every other day. We did that for the next couple of days. The platelet counts held up through the next few days eventually starting to rise. Shilpi had started feeling better, though suffering from acute weakness for a few days. Though, dengue was itself a serious enough medical condition, thankfully, it didn't take us all the way down this time. The worst was behind us!

An ordinary fever/headache to prolactinoma to migraine to urosepsis to dengue! It was a long circuitous route through series of misdiagnoses. But it still left our pockets lighter by thousands of rupees due to an MRI scan which, now I feel, was completely unnecessary. I would say that it was forced on us at a moment of panic and helplessness. And let's not even talk about the extreme anxiety all this caused us.

I don't want to name or shame anyone, especially the doctors involved.  I don't think that there is any question to be raised on the competence of the doctors involved. But I would like to ask them if all this was done right. Is this how our modern medical system is supposed to help patients? Is the extreme and protracted episode of anxiety that we tolerated unavoidable? Why so many misdiagnoses? Retrospectively, we can say many things. But aren't doctors supposed to help us reduce our suffering, instead of merely theorising about them retrospectively, and that too sitting on piles of prohibitively expensive tests?

It was a harrowing experience. I have tremendous respect for the medical profession and doctors. I have seen many times in my life how doctors have gone well beyond their call of duty and acted like angels in moments of suffering, being epitomes of integrity and capability. Yet, this expensive and ineffective process is clearly not a success, and I want to call it out without malice to anyone. I hope, members of the medical community will take heed of my humble appeal. I don't want to make allegations without having adequate proofs. But all this smells heavily of corruption too. Somehow, incentives all all medical establishments are stacked up in favour of pushing patients through expensive treatments. Doctors, though by themselves not corrupt, are probably under pressure from their employers to push for inefficient and unnecessarily expensive examinations and treatments. Anecdotal evidences are in plenty. They all can't be false!

I have nothing to say. It's saddening!

Excesses of Feminism

Why is a feminist publicly correcting me that a word I use -- I swear -- without an intent to be patronising or sexist, but which feminists have (arbitrarily) decided to tag as patronising or sexist, not considered patronising and insulting? You can't argue on logical grounds for a minute why such a rule exists. Yet, you consider it your duty and right to act as a police who enforces this rule on public. Why?

On the one hand, they want us to use gender neutral pronouns (they, zhe) or both versions of pronouns (e.g. he/she). On the other hand, they start using the male version of the word as gender neutral and deprecate the female version of the word as sexist. If both male and female versions of pronouns should be used, why should we deprecate the female version of a noun as sexist?! This is inconsistent, arbitrary and illogical tailormade to psyche logical people out of their wits! The message is clear: You can't use your logical reasoning if you want to sound politically correct. You are at our mercy, because we will set rules at will and you will follow them. Fall in line and endure insults or get called out!

These days, we come across increasingly large number of people who consider themselves the guardians of arbitrary codes of conduct and speech set into force by some feminist intellectuals. In the process, they act like they may correct others anytime on things they consider against their taste. Like many other things, such codes of speech are things people have to follow, not so much because they see any sense in them, but because of the fear of being called out and bullied by the militant factions of feminism.

By all means, let's protect women's rights. They are still raped and abused. Let's stop it. They are discriminated against. Let's stop it. They are killed in their mother's womb, prevented from going to school or taking up a profession. These need to change. And we should all actively fight against these ills.

But stop bullying well-meaning people in their day-to-day functioning by enforcing arbitrary and inconsistent codes of speech which do nothing beyond giving you a false sense of power. In the process, you are pissing off well-meaning and genuinely good people who would be happy allies if you didn't daily insult their common sense. In the long run, you are losing friends and earning enemies. This is going to come back and bite everyone.

Belligerently Virtuous

 

I have spent years and decades (in fact, much of my life) being rather secretive about my ethical stands. Reasons?

• I wanted not scare people off.
• I wanted to come across as modest and approachable.
• I didn't want to be dismissed and persecuted as being prude.
• I didn't want to invite criticism that I am showing off my virtues.
• I didn't want to be misunderstood. For example, in multiple cases, my riding a bicycle to work, or not splurging on clothes has been openly interpreted as my miserliness or even poverty. I don't see anything wrong with being a poor man. But I have problems with something I am doing out of my choice being interpreted as something being done due to circumstances.
• In this world of 'cancel culture', there's a fear that those who choose to feel threatened and offended by you, will someday call out a small perceived slip by you as a weapon to shoot you down. A person who has been open about his good deeds in the past is more vulnerable to cancellation, because on top of whatever charges are levelled against him at the moment, he lays himself open to charges of being a hypocrite owing to his earlier opposite image.

Over time, I have realised that the above line of thought was useless and caused much time in getting wasted? Wasted in what?

• In caring about opinions which don't matter held by people who matter even less.
• In not allowing, to be positively influenced by your actions, many who are open enough to feel inspired by anything good you do, rather than feeling threatened by you.

In summary, I do what I do because I think it's right to do it, not because I want others to praise me or even take to my ways. Having said that, getting praised or becoming a positive influence is acceptable, even desirable. It makes complete sense that, if you do something good with good intentions, you be open about it. And know that in doing so you are not being vain. In fact, those who say so are up to nothing good themselves than pulling down someone behaving well. This world indulges in unbridled voyeurism in lusting over images expressly intended to show off and make others feel deficient on account of money, physical beauty, exclusive attainment of sexual love and so on. And in this, they do not bat their moral eyelid. These buggers have no right to judge you if you are doing something good with your talent and intentions and are generous enough to share it with others.

In the Picture

This Thursday, I chose to travel by public transport bus to Airbus Takeoff. While their high official did a lot of talking about sustainability during the session, I did my little part to help sustainability. I took a bus (and enjoyed the ride) to and from the venue. I carried my own water bottle and refused to pick up the plastic packaged water bottle. A gentleman at the conference even tried to pick me on why I carry a plastic bottle and not a steel bottle.

Concern for Inclusion or a Marketing Ploy

 In discussions about professional products and services, there often is vehement shaming of any opinion that seems to require the user to up his ante and try to learn, understand and perceive something which he currently doesn't. Accessibility, inclusion and customer focus are used as weapons to counter any demand on the cunsumer's skilling up. We see ourselves falling for this ploy pretty quickly. To do so is very easy, convenient and most importantly safe (because talking about accessibility, inclusion and customer focus is socially acceptable behaviour). However, one must also be mindful when the concern is genuine and when it's driven by the deeper desire to keep people in the shackles of stupidity. If your business and your profits, and your personal wealth, depends on your customers' weakness, you have no right to banter about you concern for their limitation. You basically are interested in perpetuating the power you hold on them by keeping them stupid and unskilled so that you can keep using these to increase your own wealth.

I hope consumers of any product and service are mindful of this phenomenon. Beware! When the seller is talking about accessibility, inclusion and customer focus, it may be motivated by a pure selfish concern: to perpetuate their market by deepening your dependence on their offering.

Example:

MOOCs have been selling the idea hard that human attention span is 7 minutes or something, and that any form that puts a demand on the learner's attention for anything more is, by definition, not going to work. This is probably true for a lowest common denominator of learner population but is untrue in general. However, this aggressive repetition has ridded many of our learners from the little guilt for their waning attention. As a result, now, many of them don't even try to pay attention for anything longer than a few minutes thinking it's natural and conveniently pass on the blame of their wavering attention to the unengaging (read unentertaining) performance of the instructor or the inappropriate nature of the longer format of classroom lectures.

I don't want to dismiss the success of MOOCs as a purely evil thing. But a good portion of it can be attributed to the above idea which has been sold really hard by using the lip-service of influential pedagogues.

An unfortunate collateral damage of this phenomenon is the ability of the students to hold their attention for a longer time, a mental ability of great importance in a wide range of situations (e.g. engaging deep conversations, profound literature, classical music) where paying attention and patience leads to a growth, fulfilment and enjoyment unmatchable through instant gratification.

Humans and Operating Systems

 Multitasking is the act of switching between two or more tasks, both of which are in the middle of executing. If one task is waiting, say for some input from the environment, the operating system will switch to executing another for the time being, thus ensuring that the computing resources are utilised judiciously, and progress happens.

Human adults are often needed to multitask. When the currently executing task stalls or waits for some reason and you can't do much about it except wait, a human often experiences emotions that an OS can't. There's impatience. Theirs anxiety. If the result of this task failing are bad or disastrous, these emotions are particularly strong.

A human may have to switch away from this stalled task since there are other tasks running and waiting for your attention. They may meet a sad fate if they don't get your attention while you can give it to them. Switching to other waiting tasks is but the most logical thing to do, because that's what an operating system would do. But this is also one of the hardest skills to learn because humans are not operating systems.

Beauty of Mind and Beauty of Matter

It's been a constant grouse for me why it's easier for physically attractive people to get attention much more than for people who are mentally capable. For example, it's not uncommon for fashion models to have millions of followers on Instagram. Comparatively, an artist should consider himself fortunate if he can garner even a few thousand followers.

In fact, the attitude that the world seems to have for intellectuals (in which I include those who make their living using their mental capability; this would include teachers, scientists, creative professionals like artists, writers, film and theatre directors and even bureaucrats to some extent) is more than just lack of interest. Instead, I see a certain degree of animosity and intolerance too. The world around us as we see it is the product of the the thoughts and work of intellectuals. So, no one can simply ignore the existence of intellectual beings. However people seem to prefer having nothing to do with this aspect of their being, thus trying to restrict their relation to intellect as a transactional thing. Where intellectuals must be dealt with at a social level, they are boxed into stereotypes of being geeks, nerds, studious, scholars etc. amounting to grumpy, mean, serious, sever, belligerent to being socially inept and insufferable to some extent.

This animosity and unfair bias against intellectuals -- often known as anti-intellectualism -- placed vis-a-vis the enormous appetite that the world has for anything glamour has appeared very unfortunate to me to the extent of causing me great and enduring pain.

Here, I try to make peace with this predicament by trying to explain it based on psychology, to the I extent that I understand it.

So, I would like to distinguish virtues in terms of being associated with mind or matter. There are human qualities that cause immediate sensual pleasure. A beautiful body, apart from the neutral aesthetic angle, causes sexual titillation. Cooking done well leads to pleasurable eating. A beautiful painting or sketch leads to a visual treat for the viewer. A piece of music is nice to the ears whether one understands music or not. All these, I would like to call the experiences of the matter. Experiencing these involves no training or preparation.

A level above these involves aspirations, arguably a thing of the mind, with which we are born. Aspirations to look good, to be rich and influential, to be accepted and respected in our social surroundings -- these aspirations lead us to see beauty in things which otherwise may not be having any apparent beauty. For example, being rich draws looks of admiration because people aspire to be rich. Possessions -- cars, gadgets, house, properly jewellery, dresses -- receive compliments and admiring looks from those who wish to have these for themselves. Of course, as a rejoinder, let me add that it would not be completely correct to say that the above things of possession have no inherent beauty of their own: а house can be really pretty and grand; a car may be majestic, sleek, fast and powerful; a gadget may be sleek, a piece of jewellery or garment can be really fine. Yet, I would say that a large majority of humans aren't so concerned about how inherently beautiful these objects are -- at least not until they find them well within their financial reach -- but what it entails to possess them.

Collectively, the above two forms of admirations, I would like to categorise as those of the matter. They would evoke reactions from almost anyone, with or without any special training, education, talent or intelligence.

The other form of beauty is the beauty of mind. This form of beauty, in order to be admired, demands us to get into the semantics -- the structure and the kinetics -- of the object in question.

To sense this form of beauty one certainly needs to get into a state where he concerns himself as much with the process that creates the object of beauty as with the object itself. The process that created a piece of beauty is an arbitrarily deep thing. For example, to be able is sing a particular song, the singer must go through a prolonged and rigorous training in music. The poet must feel something extraordinary or something ordinary extraordinarily that he expresses through the song. The music composer, the orchestra and the singer must internalize the details of the song -- both the technical and the emotion to put together a performance powerful enough to grab the notice of the most insolent of hearts. While the song itself has the beauty of the matter, the process that creates it is unboundedly more beautiful. But it is accessible to the person only with his mind's eye open. 

Unfortunately, staying in a state where the mind's eye is open is not effortless in most cases. In fact, most of us spend only a small part of our conscious life in that wakeful state. For most part, we are in an unconscious state, a mist of insolence and apathy surrounding us. I suspect that for most unfortunate people, this wakeful state happens for a disappearingly small period of time. I am unprepared to believe that there are people who never experience this wakefulness. You may consider it my form of faith that says that each one of us is blessed with that spark of divinity that can be stoked into a blazing fire with the right kind of nurturing. But anyway, what's important here is that statistically most people have their mind's eyes closed. Hence, appreciation for the beauty of the mind is so difficult to find. Places like Facebook or Instagram are where most of us spend the moments when we are in no condition or mood to perceive anything that's not out on the surface or doesn't assert itself loudly.

Sometimes creators of the beauty of mind, in their frustration of not being able to garner are kind of popularity that those with the beauty of the matter do, try to assert themselves in all sorts of ways. Unfortunately, this hardly ever ends well. In most cases, they are judged as belligerent, that is, pushing their supremacy on others. One question is: is indeed this belligerence there? Hard to say if it's right to interpret this behaviour as belligerence. It's definitely born out of anger and frustration, and has an element of violence in it. But belligerence?Belligerence amounts to an act of aggression in an attempt to force someone to to do something without his consent. What is an overassertive creator of beauty of mind trying to force people to do by making a noise about his creation? It's hard to point out. It's often construed as an attempt to force people to acknowledge the superiority of such a person. This mayn't be the case though. Such a claim, if at all there (which I doubt it is) as vacuously true and is in no need of validation. If someone is wilfully denying this, it's clearly a mean act. For most creators, their so called belligerence is really an act of retaliation against this meanness. But interestingly, to begin with, the denial of the above acknowledgement doesn't originate from meanness, but from intellectual incapacity. When intellect is slumbering, where is the question of it seeing below the surface?

The other, even more unfortunate, way the creative mind asserts its presence to the intellectually asleep majority is by commodifying itself. 'Become so good that the brilliance of your goodness pierces through the thickest of the wall of intellectual slumber', that's the maxim. This commodification is the unfortunate mechanism that drives the commercial world. It legitimises consumerism which is the advanced state of intellectual slumber; and it legitimises the alienation caused by the non-interest in the deeply beautiful thing in favour of that whose beauty is shallow and of the material. It also normalises the claim that there's no fundamental difference between the beauty of the mind and that of the matter.

Before I close, I would like to return to the infinite potential of the experience involving the beauty of the mind. There is really no limit to what you are allowed to see and experience behind an act of creativity. In fact, it's completely legal to perceive things that even the creator may not have perceived. Experiencing the beauty of mind is an act of creation.

On a completely tangential note, this may provide at least a partial resolution to the following conundrum: 'Does a copy (probably produced mechanically) have the same beauty as the original creation? Beauty of matter: yes! Beauty of mind. no! Beauty of mind can't be copied. It can't be manufactured. Process of creation happens only once -- in the mind of the creator, in the mind of the experiencer. In fact, beauty of mind is not a thing, but a process. Ephemeral. Unique. Unreplicatable.

Final word: Beauty of mind is not meant to be popular in the manner the beauty of matter is. It is sacred, and trying to push it through the wall of the widely prevailing intellectual slumber may sometimes work, but often will break it, defile it, turning it into the beauty of matter.

Dividing the Prize of Good Work

Can organisations consider transferring a part of the salary of their employees to their partners, family members, or anyone at home, who makes it possible for the employees to put in his or her hard work?

The world has run long enough with the assumption that an employer pays its employees their salary, and it's the responsibility of the employee to share the benefits with his/her family members. Clearly, had this been a sufficient mechanism for all benefits to trickle down equitably, the whole gender discrimination issue wouldn't have arisen. The fact is that the person who has a direct access to the finances has an upper hand in the outside world in various ways. This advantage plays out very distinctly over a long period.

Personally, having been a family man for a decade and a half, it's quite clear to me that neither of us -- my wife and I -- would have been able to flourish in our professional craft without the other stepping up to help at every step. Unfortunately, this invaluable help gets a fairly sad compensation as a mention in the thesis acknowledgement or as a 'thank you' in an award ceremony, however sincerely and emotionally spelt. We need to make the compensation more explicit.

There could be objections to the above idea that a spouse's devotion or a parent's love are invaluable and thinking of compensating them in financial terms is like devaluing them. I get that, and I don't want to be dismissive about it outright. However, undeniably, the current system has led to a long-term drift and needs some correction.

Also, this idea wouldn't directly correct many other issues, for example, the fact that some people will never get an opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities in certain fields of endeavour due to this arrangement of division of labour. But, if we as a society take the task of estimating the financial value of handling a home and family, the issue of one feeling unrewarded and unacknowledged for his/her effort would be reduced to some extent, hopefully. It is likely that, in turn, everyone -- regardless of gender -- would feel motivated to contribute to domestic duties in the same way as to professional ones.

There's a trend to turn our workplaces into gender equitable spaces. This is a very good thing and should continue and strengthen by all means. But a dual force should also be created wherein men feel more encouraged to participate in managing home and family. It's definitely done in some of the developed economies, and it works. For example, some of the European countries like Sweden give paternity leave equal to the maternity leave, and that too a lot of it. This shows that the society there acknowledges the importance of nursing and raising a child, invests on it as a society and encourages men and women to participate equally in it.

A couple of points to tie up a few loose ends. Firstly, though I am thinking and writing about this subject around Women's Day, the matter is not about upliftment of women, or gender fairness. It's about fairness in general, which is gender/caste/race/class neutral virtue. This includes the interests of parents, caretakers and others who stand guard at home while a person goes out into the professional battlefield to earn bread and accolades. In the same vein, this thought has nothing to do with feminism, which is a sexist term in my opinion. Thinking like an ethical human being is an age-old idea, though put to use to a miserably insufficient extent. If feminism has done anything to help anyone do that, there're also evidence that it has brought up a generation of women (and men) who have misplaced notions of being knowledgeable about this issue and use it only to further strengthen their own privileges.

If our society considers itself a developed one, it should develop mechanisms of estimating the (economic) value of all contributions to the society; and, if possible, create channels through which credits and rewards flow to the people and places where they are due. I know, this may be a bit out of the way the world works. But to get important results, we should consider making fundamental/radical changes.

Laal Singh Chadda - A Review

 Dressing up and driving out at night is not my idea of chilling out on a Friday night following a gruelling work week. This movie is a remake of a classic -- Forrest Gump. I have watched that movie many times, am a lifetime fan of that movie and of Tom Hanks. So, I was partly mentally preparing myself to feel disappointed on the remake, as is the case with most remakes. The ongoing trouble on social network about #boycottlaalsinghchadda was there somewhere. I can swear on anything you wish that this filth doesn't sway me this way or that at all. But we surely were worried that there could be trouble at the venue. There are plenty of precendents available to show that this concern is not unfounded.

Nevertheless, the tickets were prebooked. So, we went ...

One of the first and biggest things that the movie does different from most remakes is to proclaim aloud that it's a remake. It pays tribute the original work of art and takes on squarely the challenge of offering something over and beyond what the original does. To put it as mildly as I can: LSC doesn't fail.

This note doesn't intend to be a spoiler. So, no dramatics!

Very like Forrest Gump, the movie portrays a simpleton whose life exemplifies one of the purest ideals of our life: simplicity of heart paves way to great accomplishments: be it in love, war or profession. The ability, resilience and perseverence can and will follow if you learn the art of losing yourself in the experience. There's pervasive message in the movie which has a profound spiritual scent to it. And it does it through a thousand funny and sombre moments that leave you in splits, and sometime with a lump in your throat. But that's there in Forrest Gump too, portrayed as well if not better.

What do I get from the movie as an Indian? I could relook at the grandeur, vastness and beauty of my country: its terrestrial beauty, its cultural richness and plurality, the trials and tribulations through which it has emerged post independence, its moments of tragedy: Emergency, storming of Golden Temple, Indira Gandhi assassination and the carnage of Sikhs, the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, on the one hand. On the other, its glorious moments of victory: be it in the '83 Cricket World Cup or at Kargil.

The screenplay and locales were natively and inimitably Indian. My music playlist, after years of having been locked up in the 60's and 70's, will have some new songs in them: Lyrical, profound and soothing to the ears.

So, there you go: my assessment of the movie for all its worth. Go watch it if you want to be entertained and touched by stellar acting, beautiful screenplay, picturesque picturisation, soothing music and the overall spiritual ambience the narrative sets up. Aamir Khan doesn't surprise me here. He has a long track record of having made movies which will make its millions of viewers reflect over good things: friendship (Dil Chahta Hai), impact of corruption on youth (Rang De Basanti), our attitude as a society towards learning disabilities (Taare Zameen Par), pursuit of excellence (3 Idiots), biopic of a forgotten wrestler (Dangal), looking at human society from an alien's (unbiased) eyes (PK) ... and I am sure I am missing many of them.

I remember many movies where our mythological characters have been made fun of. One example is the classic satire, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron, where characters from Mahabharata were spoofed to the limit.

But if something he had tweeted years ago which you have been convinced to consider religiously offensive (in spite of the fact that we say much more severe things about our own religion, culture and country on a daily basis, and find nothing offensive about it), please #boycottlaalsinghchadda!

How to (re)Start Reading

WHY PEOPLE DON'T READ OR GIVE UP READING

The benefits of reading are beyond debate. Reading a book is like a free appointment for a chit chat with a great mind. Inputting good words and the thoughts they convey can produce pathways in your thoughts that never existed earlier. Just like various infrastructural facilities like roads, hotels, factories, etc. allow you to explore and use your country better, likewise, vocabulary, phrases, narratives and scenarios formed through habitual reading make it possible to think in newer ways, generate newer ideas, and learn new knowledge. This leads to more mental infrastructure getting created, resulting in a compounding effect.

And yet, not as many people benefit from reading habits as one would want.

• Common laments are that people don't find time to read.
• Reading is often found to be an effortful process.
• The benefits accrued from such an effort is often deemed intangible if at all there.
• Developing a regular habit of reading by dedicating a specific hour of the day doesn't work for those who maintain erratic hours. As a result the reading hours fall victims to the vagaries of an irregular lifestyle, and so does the habit of reading.
• Not being able to read a book cover to cover leads to frustrations, triggering further avoidance and procrastination.

 Later in this article, I create a list of suggestions which may help you get started with your reading habit, or in case if you are facing a reader's block, in getting your lost reading habit back on track. The tips do so exactly by getting around some of the above issues. I will leave the discovery of the mapping the method to issue as an exercise for the reader.

 

A WORD ABOUT THE ADVISOR

I don't consider myself an expert in the subject of reading. To substantiate this, let me confess that up until recently, I used to average at about 4-5 books a year which is nothing impressive. Recently, for reasons I don't completely understand, I have jumped up a bit to about 8-10 books a year, which also is a very modest rate compared to what I find some other people being able to do. My son, for example, finishes reading a book every 3-4 days. He glides through 100s of pages, literally in a matter of hours. A friend of mine read an unbelievable 63 books last years; and such has been her rate steadily for years. Achieving such extreme speeds may require some special talents, skills and circumstances not all of us may be blessed with. Nor may all of us be so keen to clock up to such high reading rates.

Nevertheless, the point is made that I can claim not to be an expert in this subject of reading, at least going by the numbers. Yet, what may actually qualify me to advise on this topic is precisely the same reason. I am a struggler too. I have tasted the nectar and am surely hooked for life. So, while I know pretty well why a reading habit is such a powerful thing to develop, I sympathise with the difficulties faced by a beginner/struggler.

So, here are the tips:

GO FOR VARIETY

Try reading various types of books: novels, short-fiction, non-fiction, philosophy, science politics, ... Likewise, please give various languages a try. Since most of us have been educated in English medium, and since English has such an unfortunate aspirational angle to it, most of us default to English literature. When some are not able to connect with the content, they make the mistaken conclusion that reading is not their thing. However, Indian literature is equally rich. And even though we may not be very confident about our knowledge of, say, our mother tongue, when we start reading a book in that language, things may prove unexpectedly smooth, simply because this still is probably the language we converse in in our day-to-day life, and our thoughts may be tuned to the vocabulary and idioms of that language. Further, the scenarios, cultures and contexts may be far more familiar in books written by compatriots compared to books written by western authors. Anyway, short of the long: try Indian books too.

Everyone can't read all kinds of books. We are naturally conditioned to like certain topics, styles of presentation and languages more than certain others. To know our fit, we should try reading many kinds of books. Only after having developed some familiarity with one's tastes and distastes, should one start aiming to go deeper into a genre at the exclusion of other possibilities.

READING SPRINTS

Read in small bursts. Instead of making marathon sessions, go for short sprints. This has several benefits. Not having to commit a huge chunk of time to a reading session makes it look less daunting, and hence easier to do. Shorter gaps of 15-30 minutes are easier to find than 2-3 hour slots. Holding your attention for 15 minutes is a very doable target. All these make it easier to start reading every time, and that makes it more likely that you will sit down to read more frequently.

FREE YOURSELF OF BURDENS

We often carry certain unnecessary burdens in our head which block us from feeling rewarded every time we read a few paragraphs. Such continuous feeling of tiny rewards is very necessary to make reading a sustainable process. Hence, before starting to read a book, free yourself of the following burdens:

• that you will read the whole book
• that you will read in the same sequence as in the pages
• that it's only after having read a book cover to cover that you get the benefits of reading it
  

Remember that each word you read brings in something new. Hence, the moment you pick up your book and start reading, you are already better off than when you hadn't started; your benefits have started piling, and you are progressing.

Likewise, if you have some preconceived notions about the proper method of reading a book, free yourself of that too. There is no such proper way of reading. Your way is the most proper. Just read!

BE HUNGRY

Read with focus and hunger. Mentally pause to wonder what the next chapter or paragraph is going to reveal. Launch on your reading sprint with one such question in mind, and with the goal of finding an answer to that question.

MINDFULNESS VERSUS ATTENTIVENESS

If you haven't ever thought about the difference between attentiveness and mindfulness, may be you would like to. While both are states of focus, attentiveness is a purely conscious process of sticking your thoughts on one subject, and hence is effortful by definition. It may work for sometime but will lead to fatigue before long. Mindfulness is the act of creating an experience of emotional oneness with what you are doing. When we are immersed in the experience instead of thinking about the act, focus automatically happens. The way I say this here may make it appear somewhat exotic. But, it's not. It happens to all of us at some point: for example, kids experience it when playing. Mindfulness doesn't exhaust you even after a period of intense focus and effort. And, with practice, therefore, mindfulness leads to increased focus for longer periods of time.

So, why do I mention mindfulness here? Because, like in all hard stuff to do, learning to be mindful leads to focus during reading. And focused reading leads to more learning and more immersive experience. Outcome: more enjoyable and rewarding reading.

HAVE A REASON

Identify a reason why you would like to read a book. Here, your wishing to develop a reading habit is not the kind of reason I am referring to. Suppose, you are struggling with time management and would like to improve there. That makes for a good reason to pick up a book on time management or personal organisation. Similarly, some topics you may be curious to about (may be due to pragmatic reasons, but may be not) can be learned by reading a book. I realise that for me the lure of being transported to places and times where I can't otherwise go (e.g. fastastic Middle-Earth of Tolkien, Faraway planets and galaxies of Arthur C. Clarke, Olden Victorian England of George Elliot and Jane Austen, pre-independence North Indian rural and urban settings of Premchand). The fact that our mind works hard in filling up the gaps left by the written words in describing the situation is one of the primary lures of reading as opposed to watching a movie/TV series.

DIFFERENT STROKES

Reading is a matter of skill. Like all other skills, it requires prolonged practice to learn and perfect. Unless you intend to stick to a limited palette of genres, you will realise that there are different kinds of reading styles to be employed for different kinds of texts. A novel needs a different method of reading as compared to a book on philosophy. Even among novels, a book by Joseph Conrad can't be read using a style of reading that you found useful in reading Stephen King. In fact, every book is a different species and needs a different treatment. A seasoned reader will be prompt in estimating the tone and timbre of the conversation a book is trying to strike, and will adjust his reading style accordingly.

Therefore, if a book you just picked up doesn't come across as as easy a read as the last book you read, don't despair. It may just need a bit of adjusting the reading style to start enjoying the book. This will prevent unnecessary feelings of failure that often lead to a break.

SUMMARY

I hope the above tips are found practical and helpful in case you feel you are beginning on book reading or are trying to resume it. While reading may not be everyone's cup of tea, I think, it can be enjoyed by more people than we find doing today, if they free themselves of some of the hangups and mental burdens they carry about the idea of reading.

In Defense of Gandhi

Today (started on January 30) is the 74th death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. I am currently reading his autobiography -- a long pending life assignment for me; I am halfway through. From some conversations I have been witness to recently, where his contributions to India and its independence was questioned, and he was called over-rated, I feel motivated to express my current views on him.

Victim of Idolisation

Like many of his likes, Gandhi has been a victim of idolisation. It mayn't be wrong to say that calling him 'Mahatma' has done more to damage his life's work than anything else. Calling him the father of Nation may have been an act of love done by his devotees and friends. But today, this title has little function beyond being a fodder to controversies.

Congress had a vested interest in projecting him as Mahatma and then claiming the inheritance of his political legacy. They ran their shop for a long time in large part by appropriating this false legacy. The result: The Gandhi we see is through a veil of misinformation, exaggeration, and data manipulation propagated through 7 long decades.

The common man has his own reasons for making a deity out of anyone leading an inspiring life. Giving a status of Godliness is the most potent method of stunting a teacher ability to teach. It becomes a free pass for devotees to keep the benefits of being under the wings of a great man without having to follow in his footsteps. Each time someone expects such a thing of you, you excuse yourself, calling yourself a mere mortal. You escape the real test, and get a point for modesty!

The Narrow Lens

Gandhi's most predominant fame is as a freedom fighter which is again a very unfortunate thing. Gandhi was really a public worker who would gravitate towards what he encountered around himself. He started his career as a public worker in South Africa where he fought a long battle for the upliftment of the conditions of immigrant Indians. His public work would often bring him against the authorities. And he kept going back to South Africa after returning to India whenever he was called.

Gandhi worked on almost all conceivable areas of public work: health and sanitation, education, rural emancipation etc. From what appears to me from reading his autobiography, freedom struggle must have been only a part of his life's agenda and goal. Probably, it mayn't be wrong to say that it was, like all other areas, an avenue where he put his theories of truth to test.

The Spiritual Seeker

Public work itself was the outlet that Gandhi's spiritual quest found. Gandhi was deeply religious person, achingly in search for the spiritual secrets of life which he interchangeably refers to as truth or God. This lay at the base of his extreme compassion, courage and tolerance on the one hand, and deep disconnection with many things external. Yet, Gandhi was blessed with great worldly wisdom and tact, which kept getting better over the years. Many of his decisions and choices, particularly in his personal life, weren't half as worldly.

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Early  twentieth century was to Indian social reawakening what it was to Western Science -- a golden period. There were many greats including Gandhi, Nehru, Madan Mohan Malwiya, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Tilak etc. all on the political and social front. On the other side, we had the likes of Vivekananda, Tagore, JN Tata, JC Bose etc. all doyens in their respective areas. Gandhi was not the only great soul walking on the Indian soil.

One observation we could easily make is that Gandhi diligently worked towards developing a strong network with influential people. This may very well be his most distinctive characteristic which contributed to his immense influence. And, looking at his methods, far from getting a feeling of a Mahatma, I get a feeling that he followed the best practices of networking to an extent that today's IIM graduates would be envious of.

Unnecessary Comparisons

There are many unnecessary comparisons drawn  between Gandhi and many of his influential contemporaries. One of the most prominent of them is with Subhash Chandra Bose. And I upfront admit my very scant knowledge about Netaji except what was taught to us in our school textbooks and the conspiracy theories that never seem to settle about his death and afterlife.

Netaji was of the opinion that Independence should be snatched; we can't reason with the imperialists so they peacefully let go of their control on their prized colony. It goes without saying that his point of view wasn't without merit. However, his ideas couldn't coexist under the same roof with Gandhi's ideas of non-violence. So, they parted ways.

I would like to see this as nothing more than an intellectual difference between two great men. I don't find great merit in trying to insist to settle as to whose role was primary in India's independence. To the best of my understanding, it was neither. England was then a war torn country driven to the verge of bankruptcy. They would have been keen to invest their energies in rebuilding their nation rather than worrying about a colony which was already milked dry for 2 centuries, where the public faith on the Raj was at its all time low, and mutinies waiting to erupt anywhere and everywhere. I am sure, this would have already bumped up their willingness to leave us to the breaking point. Now what gave them the final push is neither easy to decide nor so important.

I am also aware that the relations between Gandhi and another great man, Dr. Ambedkar, weren't the sweetest. I have nearly no knowledge about the details of this disagreement. I am all too aware of the scholarly brilliance of Dr. Ambedkar, and the ground-breaking contributions towards drafting the Indian constitution and the upliftment of Dalits. Yet, he was no fan of  the other person who worked along with manual scavengers to improve the sanitary conditions of the city during plague, and worked towards their emancipation. This fails to perturb me one bit.

Consider how we do not make a big deal when statesmen or scholars of the present day debate and disagree vehemently with each other on matters professional, ethical and even personal or scientific. Why then does it perturb us so much when big guys we love who died decades ago didn't agree with each other? Because we are stuck with the idea of making gods out of them. It's we who make them into Gods, it's we who expect infallible behaviour from these Godly men, and it's we who fight like religious fanatics when our Gods don't agree with one another. It again us, who lynch out gods when they fail in living up to our picture perfect image of them. Isn't it stupid?

In other words, to pit two great souls against each other long after after they are gone is a vain debate fit for idle hero worshipers who contribute little to the real glory of either of them.

Non-Violence

Gandhi is often ridiculed for his overbearing fascination with non-violence. Non-violence, it seems, is all about giving your other cheek. I think, it's such an incredibly narrow interpretation of an unfathomably deep concept! Like truth, non-violence is open to interpretation. Gandhi didn't invent non-violence. It has found mention in many schools of thoughts over millennia. Gandhi just created a resoundingly successful experiment in using it as a tool to break the spirit of the mighty imperialists and empowering the teeming millions to think that they could take on the Britishers by coming out into the streets and filling up the jails in thousands.

Even if we look at non-violence as just a tool in the struggle for independence, it is not an exclusionary policy. I am sure there were people on both extremes and everywhere in between. Non violence was super effective in solving many complicated standoffs, and there are numerous examples of that. And admittedly, it wasn't a panacea for all issues.

A New Lens

Let's forget the Mahatma. Think of a shy, mediocre teenager from provincial Gujarat -- unsure of himself in everything: be it in his ability to speak English, his control on lust, his professional capability or his spiritual depth. And start tracing his journey from this state to when the whole nation starts looking at him as an imposing influence in some of the most stressful and controvercial of its social matters. You see that he made this big transformation possible through things which each one of us would -- in theory -- be able to do. The tricks he used were of study, self-examination, honesty, perseverance, non-violence, self experiments (in a variety of social, economic and religious austerities among others), networking with a wide-variety of people from various political schools, nationalities, religious backgrounds and races. These are none the qualities of a highly intelligent or talented person, but of a simple and ordinary person who just didn't know how to give up.

And that, in my eyes, is the most inspiring legacy of Gandhi. He essayed his life as a story of a simple man who reached dizzying heights of greatness using nothing but his pathetic experiments with truth. In front of these achievements, I count even his contributions to the National Independence as nothing.

So, let's give Gandhi a second chance. Let's liberate him of his titles and the unrealistic expectations of infallible public/political behaviour from him. Let's study his journey and his experiments with truth. Debate with his thoughts and opinions. Disagree with him, ridicule him, sometimes even feel a sense of revolt at his many naivetes and failings. But let's acknowledge him for his numerous merits which include courage, tact, willpower, resilience and so on. And then see if he fails to impress and inspire.

Blame it All on Nand Ghosh*

 

We Hindus have been picturing our evils as an anthropomorphic entity like Ravana, Mahisasura, Duryodhana, Hiranyakashyap etc. We have been celebrating the single act of vanquishing them by burning their effigies, thinking that's a step towards getting rid of the evils of the world. We have been struggling to conquer them for thousands of years.

Modern people create more sophisticated effigies: Rightists, leftists, Bhakt, Hindutva, Libtards, patriarchy, capitalists, socialists, racists ... their number seems to have grown bigger.

I don't say these things don't exist. But picturing all evil in the world as emerging from one such identifiable source -- your favourite one -- is naivette. To think of it as an external to ourselves is a form of denial.
I think, the practice of mapping all evil you see around you to one source is not doing us any good. Instead, let's acknowledge the complexity and multiplicity of the phenomena that lead to social evils. Oversimplification of problems has never led to any real solution. They may create quick improvements, but would soon replace one problem with another.

 

* যতো দোষ নন্দ ঘোষ  -- In Bangla, the proverb talks about the act of finding a single person to blame for all goof ups.

Let's Draw a Cartoon

Let's draw a cartoon.

Let's tell a story.

That looks funny,

But mayn't be so beneath.

That brings smiles,

And some frowns.

That tickles some funny bones.

And ruffles up some feathers.

That needs hours of hard work,

Just to give the illusion,

That it came out,

Of just a casual stroke.

Once in an Indigo Moon

 

 

 

There was nothing beautiful about this journey. A night spent outside the airport (they wouldn't let me in as I was too early) without a wink, being bitten by mosquitoes and trying to strike a conversation with stray dogs. Heart laden with every negative emotion that you can think of: Panic - that I would get stuck away from my family during the suddenly announced Karnataka lockdown. Guilt - as I knew I would have to dodge the authorities for not having done my mandatory RT-PCR (I tried my level best to find out if I would be able to travel after the lockdown was enforced so that I could travel with the COVID negative certificate, but I couldn't. The more likely thing was: I wouldn't be able to travel). Sadness - as I had to drop unfinished what I had travelled to Nagpur to do. Exhaustion - out of having to deal with three serious illnesses and hospitalisations in the family in the last twenty days. Worry - for the health of those who were sick.  Anxiety - Work piling up.

In such a moment, Nature challenged me. "While negativity crowds your mind, will you still be able to notice a thing of beauty that passes before you." I took that challenge. I showed her this scene which I noticed during a split second spent on the tarmac. She smiled and said: "Son! You have been granted admission to my art school!"