Random

Such are the ways of religion

2009-09-21T19:39:00.000-07:00

My A Word A Day subscription informed me about the etymology of the word 'termagant':

Termagant

MEANING:
noun: A quarrelsome or overbearing woman.

ETYMOLOGY:
From Old French Tervagant. The term originates after an imaginary deity that Christians in medieval Europe erroneously believed was worshiped by Muslims. It was represented in morality plays as a violent, overbearing personage. Over time, the term became generalized to apply to any brawling person, and eventually only to women.

Imaginary, did you say? Ha ha ha.

An unusal wish

2008-07-12T19:34:00.001-07:00

Something I found in my diary from nearly a decade ago. Had found it while flipping through a book. My diary mentions the source as Gooberz.

I thought this is a most unusual wish
to be part of a classroom in a school of fish
and decided you must be joking with me

but you said, quite seriously

I am not joking at all
fish are wiser than most people surmise

is that what your secret assignment is?
are you going to try to teach dolphins to talk?

You looked straight into my eyes
when you replied

If I ever became friends with a dolphin
I would never presume to try to teach such a creature
more evolved than most humans could ever be
on the contrary, I would try to learn
all the levels of insight and depth of wisdom
a dolphin might be kind enough
to share with me

train dolphins for secret missions?

I'd prefer to train them how to remain free
that is ... if I were ever to meet one
and the two of us
should happen to share a cup of tea

then you smiled
and changed the subject ...

Sarkar Raj: My take

2008-06-12T16:38:00.000-07:00

Disclaimer:
1. I do not claim any knowledge of the nuances of movie making - direction, lights, etc. It is also not my contention, like many others', that RGV has lost it or that should not make crazy remakes (including AAG). He makes movies for himself and he has every right to.
2. Contains SPOILERS.

Here's the review.

It is an OK film. Not too bad, not good either. Amitabh Bachchan is great, and Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan do well enough despite the poor script. I do not know anything about lights, direction, and other technical stuff. But apparently they were good (read reviews at Amitabh Bachchan's blog for that). For a movie with a poor script, it is much easier to point out negatives than pick out the positives. Some of the things that I didn't like in the movie are listed below. It might seem like nitpicking, but RGV prefers concrete examples.

1. The biggest turn off for me in the movie was the background music. Let me explain. "dholakiya ke marne ke baad uske oopar ka link toot gaya ..." "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida". Normal dialogue, you'd say, and even naturally expect at that moment, if you are anything of a movie fan. No problems till now (except that for a movie that is a follow up to the movie that was supposedly inspired by Godfather, you'd not like to be able to guess the dialogue). But then the background score comes in screaming and claiming it to be a kick-ass line. Consider a joke that is meant to evoke just a smile, but suddenly somebody starts laughing uncontrollably - the essence of the joke is lost. Now just imagine, that the joke is lame, and instead of letting it go when somebody doesn't respond, you start laughing yourself. That's the problem with the background score.
2. 'saam daam dand bhed' chant is heard often without any relevance to the situation. For example, just after "phir tumhe zinda rakhne ka kya faaida?" What's so 'by hook or by crook' about it?
3. When Anita (Aishwarya Rai) comes to the Nagre residence and starts explaining the project, Sarkar says 'ye sab technical baatein chhodiye, point pe aaiye'. A 'don't kid me, I'm super-smart' line. Then dialogues are muted, background score comes in, and camera focuses on faces while Anita explains something. My understanding was that she was talking about how it will impact the people, how many people will be displaced, etc. But when the dialogue resumes, Sarkar asks her about the exact same thing. So what were they talking about while the music was out? As somebody commented, 'may be the writer was not paid enough'. I can sometimes be a moron, and not see the obvious (actually it happens a lot). So if you can suggest something that I missed, I'd be glad. Also, the platitudes by Sarkar to the CM about responsibilities of government did not go well with me (but that is probably a quibble).
4. For someone who claims "mujhe naamumkin lafz se sakht nafrat hai", she gives up pretty easily ("lag raha hai yahan ye project lagana naamumkin hai") after Sarkar disapproves the proposal. She shouldn't have needed Hasan Qazi's pointer regarding Shanker Nagre, if she was such an astute business woman with a never-say-die attitude. More so, since she supposedly takes up major Godfather duties in the last scene of the movie (or did I completely misinterpret that scene?) and should be the protagonist in Sarkar 3. She even had to ask 'to?' when Hasan Qazi pointed it out to her that Shanker didn't say a word in the meeting. Itni tubelight? Not good omen for Sarkar 3.
5. And wasn't Al Pacino supposed to be smart in Godfather. Would you expect him to disregard a good advice from a friend about possible threat to his life, instead initiate romance, and then get shot at immediately afterwards? It's not that he was a car salesman that threat to his life was unthinkable. Yes, if he talked a little more and behaved like a normal guy, such lack of regard to sound advice and, if I may say so, the occasional stupidity would be excused. But a no-nonsense guy going nonsensical does not go very well.
6. I didn't like the ending as well because I prefer Vyomkesh Bakshi to Tehkikaat. While in the former, the viewer is walked through the investigation, sees the clues for himself/herself, tries to figure it out, and is then surprised by the intelligence of the detective, in the latter, the detectives just put up their hands and say, "Hey, listen up guys. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED". No explanation of how the conclusion was achieved at. So while I am impressed by Sarkar's intellect at discerning the politics behind it all -I already knew he was super smart because he's supposed to be the Indian Godfather - I would much rather like to know the thought process that drove him to the conclusion.

7. One last quibble. When the hired killer, who is never shown and refuses to divulge the method of his/her killing (politically correct, chuckle), it is certainly a let down when the assassination is old-fashioned shooting without anything innovative. So you knew without letting it be known by the hired hand that it was going to be a shooting (it is the normal mode of assassination). And there was no surprise, something like "oh, that sequence was interesting". So what was the need for secrecy, except to give a certain air. This is but an example of the underlying problem with the movie that it tries to be smart and hep and cool (of course, in a Sarkar way), but not enough thought has been given to back that up. Again, if the hitman was put in a more normal light, his face shown, him letting to speak a couple of lines, (or even if he/she wasn't shown at all) the shooting wouldn't have disappointed.

Atheism

2008-02-09T07:16:00.001-08:00

Do atheists exist? I mean if someone states that God doesn't exist, isn't he/she assuming some agreed upon definition of god? Even in the simplest definition of a controlling force over the world, how can anybody be sure that it/he/she doesn't exist. There are difficult questions about the possibility of an omnipotent moralistic god for sure. But a God without human moral code, for example Scott Adam's concept of probability as God, seems plausible. Or a polytheistic system, like Indian or Greek, where Gods are allowed to be scoundrels!

The two issues that I have with atheism are: First, it assumes some specific definition of God; and second, it is too self-assured in its knowledge. I must confess, though, that I haven't done any reading on atheism as a philosophical system. So, I'd appreciate if anyone can enlighten me on this.

Remove traffic signals to control traffic!!!

2007-12-27T08:28:00.000-08:00

I have always said that driving in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh is much less risky than driving in State College, Pennsylvania. The inherent chaos of a small Indian city traffic makes people much more alert and forces them to rely on common sense. You don't have to look at ten traffic signals; just be cautious all the time. It makes life much more interesting as well!

A German town, following the logic, has started an experiment. It has started removing traffic signals in an attempt to control traffic!!! And the initial results are very encouraging! Here's the link.

Weird Dreams

2007-10-17T12:21:00.000-07:00

After two weird dreams, I had the idea of putting them on blog after waiting to have a few more. But the dumbing down of my brain cells, due to the endless travel in the fantasy world created by one tv serial or another, dried out the creative sparks from my dreams. So, I decided to put a couple of old ones with the new.

1. If Freud was right that dreams reveal hidden fears, than I guess that my laptop accident in my bathroom (don't ask) that left me with a $500 repair bill, has had a pretty deep impact. The dream goes like this:
I am crossing a road with a laptop in one hand and a cell phone in another, and I realize that the laptop is slipping out of my hand. Being the smart kid that I am, I bend and lower my hands as the laptop slips, to avoid any damage. The actual impact that the laptop suffers is just about an inch of fall and it still manages to break into two. Not only that, my cell phone also splits. Anyone else would have been upset, but not me. With a history of weird dreams, and the conviction that such damage is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE with so small an impact, I decide that I must be dreaming. I go on to reassure my worried dad that its just a dream and it will be over soon.
I did get concerned for a while when the dream didn't evaporate quickly - "Damn, it looks like it really is happening". But, my belief in laws of physics didn't betray me and everything turned out fine.

2. My cousin sister had a daughter in March '07 who in her recent pictures looks so cute with her rotund cheeks and wide eyes, that I really miss not being there to pinch her cheeks. I have been actually realizing what parents mean when they say 'bachche kitni jaldi bade ho jaate hain' (How fast do kids grow). Few days back, I had this dream where she can talk fluently and is talking non-stop, joking around, messing with everyone. I am enjoying all that and wondering - Can a 7 month old really do all that?

3. Back in my boarding school when sleep used to be a luxury and the comfort of quilts and blankets in the cool winters of Nainital was not easy to let go of, dreams were especially treasured. Normally, dreams end when you wake up and it becomes difficult to continue the dream even when you fall back asleep. But there was a period when my dreams went in parallel with reality. A dream would be in progress and I would be aware that anytime Mrs Shipley (our Warden) would come barging in the dormitory and bang the first steel almirah, and my dream would be broken.
It was a good period while it lasted.

I wonder

2007-10-13T12:43:00.001-07:00

1. Shouldn't acrophobic people be good at sky-diving?

2. Is it really courteous to say 'Thank You' or 'Good Night' to the bus driver when you get down the bus. Ever wondered how many Have-a-nice-day's or Good-night's he has to mouth each day responding to the 'courteous' patrons? Consider this: A bus on a V Route stops at least at 10 stops. If at each stop 5 people get down (a very conservative estimate), that means 50 per trip. Lets say a driver makes 6 trips per day (again a conservative estimate), that means 300 people. If out of this 300, half of the people get down from the front door and say their usual greetings to the driver, that still means 150 responses demanded from him. While the average twice-a-day greetings may not be much for a patron, the burden of response on the driver is much too high.

3. If beauty is skin deep, what about body fat?

Heat period

2007-10-11T19:53:00.001-07:00

I have a theory, if you will, based on a sample population of one. I believe that unlike popular belief humans do have a heat period. I believe that there must have been a time when humans like other mammals did have a period during which sexual activity would spike. However, humans, being the big evolvers that they are, figured out sometime down the line that they do not have to limit themselves to 3-4 months a year. They could, and they did, start copulating whenever they felt like it. Their adaptability fudged the distinct signs of heat periods. But if you pay attention there are clearly periods during which the libido touches the roof, when each and every member of the opposite sex seems to raise the barometer.

Now please don't call me crazy. You also don't have to jump right on and point out that the sample population is just too small. If you are not convinced, just do a google. Scientists are in fact looking at hidden heat periods in females. My theory is not that crazy, now is it?

Ethics: Pro-choice vs Pro-life

2007-10-09T22:04:00.000-07:00

Let me first acquaint the unfamiliar readers with this prominent issue on debate in the United States of America - Pro-life vs Pro-choice. Pro-life campaigners demand that abortions and assisted suicides be made illegal. Pro-choice people say that the abortion and assisted suicide should be matters of personal choice. Abortion of a baby up to 22 weeks of pregnancy is legal in most states in USA and so I guess the 'pro-life' lobby, as they call themselves (implying that the other side is 'anti-life'), should tend to be more aggressive than the 'pro-choice' side. So we hear of abortion clinic bombings; that was my introduction to the issue and it of course put me off, as it always does when people presume to know so well how others should live that they are willing to kill for it. Then, of course, there is the irony: I kill because I am pro-life.

For someone who has spent most of his life in a developing country like India, that is still uncivilized in its savage brutalities, quotidian atrocities on the unfortunate humans have so hardened us that debates about ethics of stem cell research or abortion evoke not the slightest interest. A common response is - Oh give it up! There are far bigger problems in this world than to discuss whether the fertilized egg is human or not. However, a discussion at home triggered some thoughts and I decided to do some research on this. The first resource that I found, discusses the issue in detail. Although it distinctly had a pro-life flavor, I found some of the positions taken are actually reasonable. A second source compares the arguments of both parties side by side in a tabular form.

I have always been pro-choice in all matters since I hate to be told what I am supposed to do and what not to do. So, to me this was a non-issue. Pro-choice, of course. The individual knows what's best for him/her. I knew the basic arguments of pro-life lobby - any human life is sacred, an unborn baby is a distinct individual, and we don't have a right to kill that individual. The argument than shifts to the tricky issue of when exactly the fertilized egg becomes an individual. It is very easy to see the human form of the baby in later stages of pregnancy and, having seen that, say, in a sonogram, it is difficult to feel indifferent towards the fate of the baby. On the other hand, it seems less brutal to abort a fertilized egg within a week of conception. To be clear, the pro-life position is that life begins at conception and so they oppose not only abortion but also the use of morning-after pills.

So is it that the baby becomes an individual (a distinct human life) some time between conception and delivery, or is it the case ever since conception? Pro-choice perspective is that the baby is dependent on the mother inside the womb and so can not be treated as an individual; therefore, the mother should be the one to make decisions about her body. Pro-life campaigns argue that the baby is an individual and has sensations independent of the mother. The debate on this is really one which can go on and on at philosophical, religious, and scientific fronts. The articles mentioned previously have discussed much on this and the interested reader may refer to the main arguments of both sides.

When confronted with the issue, it is very easy to be polarized at one extreme. But a patient look does reveal that both sides have merits of their own and it is not really a clear cut decision. For example, one argument of pro-life campaign is that women choose abortion in many cases because of the pressure of society and the intimidating burden of raising a child alone. They argue that the choice of abortion by women in many cases is not an independent one (and therefore not really a free choice) and it is the duty of the society to make steps to correct that. Thus, it seems that there is hope of a compromise between that two-sides. Its excellent to be pro-choice, but life can be a choice.

After only a little reading, I realize that a debate on the issue is necessary in order to keep the ethics of human life in check. For example, is it okay to prevent the birth of a child that is mentally damaged and will depend on other people all its life? In cases of extreme damage, one can claim that this individual will have a tough, even pathetic, life and will only be a burden on the society. But where and how do we draw the line? Moreover, can we by that logic justify the genocide of physically handicapped individuals as was done quite notoriosly by Hitler. These are questions that can not be settled very easily.

Another difficult to decide case would be of someone dying a slow and painful death and wishing to 'opt out' of life. Is euthanasia justified in such cases? I do lie on the side of choice, again. But I wouldn't scorn those who oppose it. It is relatively easy for me to choose euthanasia when it 'seems right' because I do not really believe in the sanctity of life. My discord arises primarily from the exclusion of other life forms from such beliefs. If life is sacred, all life is. (But it would really be difficult for a lion with 'sanctity of all life' ethics to survive.) Yet laws of our society punish for destroying a human life infinitely more severely than they do in the case of animal life which is sometimes even legal. Nevertheless, I have to concede that such discrimination between human life and other life forms is inevitable, possibly necessary, for amicable existence of the human race. Sanctity of life, whether meaningful or meaningless, is something on which our society and its laws are based. Therefore, it is not entirely without reason that some people believe in, or at least campaign for, sanctity of human life.

It is important to realize that crusaders on both sides are conscientious people who are trying to do what they feel is right. I do scorn at the idea of disallowing stem-cell research, but a lack of opposition to stem cell research would be indicative of a carefree attitude towards ethics. I think its fabulous that there are people who are concerned about what is right and what is wrong, even though they may confuse the right with the wrong (and that doesn't necessarily mean those with whom I disagree).

It is better to deliberate a little and not to reach at conclusions too soon. Finally, I have an occasion to put my new found one liner - You only reach a conclusion when you stop thinking.

Women, minority

2007-08-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

The word 'minority' is very frequently encountered in discussions on affirmative action. In the heat of any debate, often absurd definitions are attributed to common sense terms. One would think that a 'minority' group is one that constitutes a small percentage of the total population compared to the larger groups. I remember that during the last storm over the reservation issue in India, somebody commented that anything less than 50% is a 'minority'. I was reminded of this again when a guest on CNN-IBN live said 'women are the most oppressed minority'.
So why is 'minority' such a sacrosanct word? If I were to believe the news bites in the media, India has a sizable oppressed majority - that of the OBCs, which some claim constitute about 54% of the Indian population.
So why not just say that 'women are the most oppressed section of society', or if we want to be really honest, that 'women constitute the largest and the most oppressed section of society'. Why bring in the M word for nothing?

Project meeting

2007-08-19T00:41:00.000-07:00

Here's a short note that I made of a meeting several months ago.

Guy 1: He's the in-charge of the whole meeting and makes sure he seems busy throughout.
All the rest are there to just bide their time.

The new guy: He just joined the division. It is very easy to spot him. He is the one with pen and pad, making diligent notes and making sure everybody notices that. Not to miss the most amazing smile in the world as if advertising for Happy Dent.

The graduate student about to present his work wishing that the torture would end and he'd be free to go back and bang his head on his own PC.

The other graduate student: Hides his head under the soil, trying to remain invisible. Suddenly realizes he has to show some interest/insight, and so decides to ask questions, the relevance of which he is not entirely sure.

Graduate student #1 felt that the meeting would have very well used a beautiful girl.

You knew it already

2007-08-12T12:37:00.000-07:00

Pray, v. To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), [The Devil's Dictionary, 1906]

Anyone can do any amount of work, provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at that moment. -Robert Benchley

Courtesy: wordsmith.org

Spanish translation on Hitler

2007-07-16T19:21:00.000-07:00

I am learning spanish these days. Thought that translating the blogs would be a good practice. So here is a translation of one of my previous blogs.

Leo un libro sobre Adolf Hitler y encontre algunos de sus pensamientos sobre propaganda eficaz muy interesante. Su comprension de la psique de las masa es extraordinario y explica, a alguno extension, su exito en movilizar opinion publico en su favor.

"Ya que la muchedumbre tiene solo un conocimiento pobre de ideas abstractas, sus reacciones yacen mas en el dominio de sentimientos, donde el origen de sus actitudes positivas y negativas es implantado. ... Los suelos emocionales de sus actitudes proporciona la razon para su estabilidad extraordinaria. Es siempre mas facil a luchar contra la fe que contra el conocimiento. Y la fuerza motriz que causado las revoluciones mas tremendas del mundo nunca ha sido un cuerpo de la ensenanza cientifico que ha ganado la influencia sobre la multitud, pero siempre una devocion que los ha inspirido, y a menudo una especie de la histeria que los ha instado en accion. Quienquiera quere a ganar el apoyo de la muchedumbre tiene que saber el llave ese abrirá la puerta a sus corazones. No es objetividad pero un voluntad decidido, apoyado por fuerza donde necesario."
"Las facultades receptivas de la muchedumbre son limitadas muy, y su concepcion es debil. Por otro lado, ellos se olvidan pronto. Toda propaganda eficaz tiene que limitarse a unas pocos necesidades, y entonces tiene que expresarse en unas pocas fórmulas estereotipadas.

"Cuando usted miente, dice las mentiras grandes...que en una mentira grandes ahi es siempre una cierta fuerza de credibilidad; porque las multitudes de una nación siempre son corrompido más fácilmente en los estratos más profundos de su naturaleza emocional que conscientemente o voluntariamente, y por lo tanto en la sencillez primitiva de sus mentes ellos les caen a víctimas más fácilmente a la mentira grande que la pequeña mentira, ya que ellos si mismos a menuda mienten en los asuntos pequenos, pero se avergonzarian recurrir a falsedades de gran escala. Nunca lo venirían en las cabezas a fabricar falsedades colosales y ellos no creerían que otros tendrían el insolencia para deformar la verdad tan infamemente... la mentira groseramente insolente siempre sale vestigios detras de ello...aún después ha sido clavado.'

Sobre todo, nunca vacila, nunca matiza que usted dice, nunca concede un pulgada al otro lado, pinta todos sus contrastes en blanquinegro. Este es el "muy primero la condicion que tiene que ha ser satisfacido en cada tipo de la propaganda; una actitud sistematicamente unilateral para con cada problema que tiene que ser tratado con....Cuando ven un ataque intransigente contra un adversario, el pueblo siempre lo han tomado como prueba que bien esta en el lado del agresor, pero si el agresor iria sólo hasta la mitad y fallar de empujar en casa su exito....el pueblo vera sobre este como un indicio que el es incierto de la justicia de su propia causa.

Man creates God

2007-07-16T08:35:00.000-07:00

God created Men or Men created God? This might help you in answering that question. It is about a 'chor baba ka mazar' in Patna where thieves come to pray so that 'jab kaam karne jaayen, chori karne jaayen, to safal ho ke aayen'. One guy that explains the faith of the devotees is particularly enjoyable.

Follow up video: Have trouble getting a passport, or failing in exams? Go to passport baba!

Link to article "swallowing shame"

2007-07-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

There's a nice piece here titled "swallowing shame". People who have appeared for a US visa interview can somewhat relate to it. There's a difference in perspectives of someone from a developing/underdeveloped Asian/African country and of someone from USA.

Just choose one, anyone

2007-07-09T11:37:00.001-07:00

I saw CPI General Secretary Mr. A. B. Bardhan defend his party's decision to support Mrs Patil's candidature on CNN-IBN Live. But rather than defending her in face of the charges raised, he explained his party's decision thus:
1) She's a woman.
2) It does not matter what her personal beliefs are. After all, the president can not make any policy decision. (Mrs. Pratibha Patil's plans of not being a rubber stamp President are sadly vanquished, let it be known to her.) So she doesn't need to recant her decision as the Health Minister in 1975 to forcibly sterilize people with hereditary disorders like heart diseases, diabetes, and even poor eyesight, etc. Or that she talks to dead people.
3) There are so many corrupt people in Congress and even more in BJP, the party that is raising allegations against Mrs. Pratibha Patil.
4) He's sure that when she becomes President she'll not claim that she's talking to dead people.

How is he sure about that when she did the same few weeks back? 'Because as a President she'll have to follow the policy laid down by the government.' Implicit in the argument, I suppose, was the assertion that a policy will be laid down by the government that the President shall not talk to dead people and if he/she does so, he/she will not declare that in public.

Some days later, Mr. Karan Thapar interviewed BJP spokesperson Mr. Rajnath Singh with accusations against the other Presidential candidate, Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.
1) He was suspended for taking bribe as sub-inspector in 1947.
2) He defended his son-in-law when he was accused of trying to obtain compensation for land which he did not own.
3) He lied on the floor of assembly.
4) He quashed cases against him when he was the Chief Minister of Rajasthan.
5) He was an MLA in Rajasthan from 1952 to 1972, and from 1977 to 2002. Still he managed to be a Rajya Sabha member from MP in between, which indicates false declaration of domicile.

To all these charges, Mr. Rajnath Singh's reply was that looking his public life from 1952 to 2002, no one can accuse Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat of dishonesty. He repeated this every time an allegation was made. Then Mr. Karan Thapar proceeded to prove that Mr. Arun Shourie's book that purportedly proved that Mrs. Pratibha Patil was in fact guilty of all crimes that she was accused of, was full of 'concoctions and deliberate lies.' Karan Thapar had interviewed Mr. Arun Shourie few days back in which he had agreed with and endorsed virtually every piece of 'researched allegation'. During the interview with Mr. Bardhan, every allegation against Mrs. Patil seemed to be the truth. During the interview with Mr. Rajnath Singh, the same allegations seemed to be 'concocted lies'.

So after watching the three interviews I wonder if it is at all possible to know anything with reasonable certainty. When senior journalists like Karan Thapar can't get their facts right before interviewing someone how is the aam aadmi expected to verify authenticity of allegations and counter-allegations. All we can do is to gorge up sound bytes from the media without being able to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lie. In the end, may be Mr. Bardhan was right. How the hell does it matter who the President is, what his/her beliefs are, whether he/she is honest or not - after all is it even possible to find a prominent politician who's not done anything unethical or immoral? As long as we can prove to the world the changing position of woman in Indian society by electing a woman as President, we'll be just fine.

I object

2007-07-08T11:00:00.000-07:00

"Calling us bollywood is derogatory: naseer, om". Read this somewhere on the web, not for the first time. But with the continuous output of junk cinema in 'Bollywood', I just wondered - derogatory for whom? Bollywood or Hollywood?

Pre-emptive action

2007-07-05T11:27:00.001-07:00

Notice to all students

Coffee, Tea etc. is made available to students for use in this room only. Recently, many items have been disappearing rapidly, cups, coffee, and tea. Due to the increase in supplies, we may need to stop coffee services in the future.

Please drink responsibly

Thank You

The above notice is placed in the common room in my department. Now why is this here? Because it has been in the common room every single day for the last 3 years and I thought a change of place would be good. Talk about preemptive action! Not to mention giving new meaning to the phrase 'please drink responsibly'.

2007-06-05T06:27:00.000-07:00

The only man I know who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew each time he sees me. The rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them.
- George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate (1856-1950)

Courtesy: wordsmith.org

Hitler and the Art of Propaganda

2007-05-12T15:33:00.000-07:00

I am reading a book on Adolf Hitler and found a few of his views on effective propaganda quite interesting. His insight into the psyche of masses is remarkable and explains, to some extent, his success at mobilizing public opinion in his favor. I could not fail to notice how often such tactics are followed by power brokers who are often handsomely rewarded for it.

Here goes an extract on the driving forces for revolutionary processes, and his stress on emotions of masses, rather than intellect, which he believes they lack:

"Since the masses have only a poor acquaintance with abstract ideas, their reactions lie more in the domain of the feelings, where the roots of their positive as well as their negative attitudes are implanted....The emotional grounds of their attitude furnish the reason for their extraordinary stability. It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge. And the driving force which has brought about the most tremendous revolutions on this earth has never been a body of scientific teaching which has gained power over the masses, but always a devotion which has inspired them, and often a kind of hysteria which has urged them into action. Whoever wishes to win over the masses must know the key that will open the door to their hearts. It is not objectivity, which is a feckless attitude, but a determined will, backed up by power where necessary."

Further:
"The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas."

This one is very interesting to me, particularly because I once forwarded this as a theory to explain why people tend to believe some preposterous stories of a friend of mine - inability to fathom that somebody could lie so blatantly (and/or without any apparent purpose):

When you lie, tell big lies. "... that in a big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lie in little matters, but would be ashnamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.... The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down."

Finally:

Above all, never hesitate, never qualify what you say, never concede an inch to the other side, paint all your contrasts in black and white. This is the "very first condition which has to be fulfiled in every kind fo propaganda: a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with....When they see an uncompromising onslaught against an adversary, the people have at all times taken this as proof that right is on the side of the aggressor; but if the aggressor should go only halfway and fail to push home his success... the people will look upon this as a sign that he is uncertain of the justice of his own cause."

His actions were consistent with all these ideas and for a large part responsible for whatever successes he had in pursuing his goals. A determined will most of all.

Source:
Hitler - A study in tyranny: by Allan Bullock, Penguin Books, 1990, pp 69-70
Ultimately from:
Mein Kampf. pp. 101, 283, 198-9, 160-1.

Quick Fix

2007-04-12T13:55:00.000-07:00

The first government report on abuse of children in India brings to light some shocking statistics - 1 in 2 child suffers from one of three kinds of abuse: physical, sexual, psychological. Physical abuse does not come as a shock, as parents and teachers consider it sound-parenting to beat a child when he/she errs. Opinions will always be divided in the middle as to how much that assumption is correct. Psychological abuse, as was defined by experts on CNN-IBN, constitutes negative feedback to a child such as "you are no good", and are also considered by parents/teachers as inducements to good behavior. That, too, can be witnessed in the society on a regular basis.

The statistics say that boys are as likely to be sexually abused as girls. Few months back when there was the incidence of girls being molested in schools, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi came up with the quick solution of not keeping male teachers in girls' schools and co-ed schools for children below 11. The absurdity of this was obvious and I wrote a blog article then. So here we are. Now that we know that boys are as likely to be sexually abused as girls, what does the MCD now want to do? Ban male teachers altogether? But, is it that female teachers are never guilty of it. Then there is this other part of the report that says that in majority of the cases the uncles and cousins are the perpetrators. So? Expel more teachers, censure 'unacceptable' commercials, ban smoking in movies. Anything, but imparting sex-education in schools and making kids aware of the dangers that they are exposed to. Because you see, that would corrupt them. Wouldn't they stop watching/reading porn and just open text-books for their sensual pleasures?

Coming to BCCI. Team doesn't perform. Sure it must be that wretched mammon. So tighten their purses. Even if the performance of the team does not improve, at least the public at large will have the assurance that BCCI is concerned with their angst and is 'doing everything in its power' to improve the state of affairs in Indian cricket. The need for faster pitches, more exposure to domestic players, transparency in BCCI functioning will all be conveniently forgotten with time. Moreover, everybody knows that the team can not do any worse. It has to improve. So the situation is not all that bad. Everything is in control people!

There is this all-pervading tendency of quick-fix approach in Indian bureaucracy and politics: to every problem there is an express solution, that seems a solution only at the first glance. Look any closer and the secrets unravel. Riots broke? Do a 'CBI jaanch', set-up a sarkari committee and wait for its results and, more realistically, for the tempers to cool down.

And yes, I almost missed it. Sachin Tendulkar is such a traitor. How dare he disrespect our country by cutting a tri-colored cake? Sure he should be punished for it. Is there any greater sign of disrespect to the nation than cutting a cake?

Prabhu Ki Leela

2007-02-11T19:30:00.000-08:00

Gorakhpur is on boil, and the fire has spread to other parts of the state. So I hear from the news media. For what, you may ask. From what I could gather, it started when Adityanath, the local MP, was arrested by the police. Surprised on how could this lead to so much trouble? After all, politicians are arrested all the time without a feather being ruffled; it forms the achievements section of most politician's resume. Don't be surprised. His greater qualification is being Yogi Adityanath of Gorakhnath temple. So, bogeys of trains have been burnt. It is all natural. After the blasphemy of arresting a religious leader, the gods need to be appeased.

I, on my part, am trying to figure out which gods are likely to be gratified with this show of solidarity among brethrens. Agni Devta, Yam Raj, or perhaps more likely, Election Devta. Although, the political commentators tell us that all this is politically motivated, I don't really understand how all this helps out political some group or the other. Are people really so stupid? I know they are, but it never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps it is part of the whole 'prabhu ki leela' thing that the serials of the league of Om Namah Shivah so devoutly tell us!

ONE by Richard Bach

2007-02-11T19:29:00.001-08:00

Read Richard Bach's One on my way to and from San Francisco. I liked a few things about the book. Foremost, that it had large print which meant less reading! (When I start a book, I get very anxious to finish it up).

To me, it is a book about choices. We have one life to live. But there are infinite choices and depending on the choices we make, we can live any of the infinite lives possible.
Then there was another thing I liked. Rather, it is my personal philosophy. I quote from the book - If it's my fault, I can change it! If I change and stay changed for a month, and we're still unhappy, then we can talk about changing her!"
In any problem, always look for where you are wrong. That is the part which you can correct. You will find that in almost every scenario that you are upset with, you are partly at fault - either by action or by inaction. I think such attitude resolves a lot of issues. Furthermore, this sort of attitude gets rid of any paranoia that you are at the center of a wicked conspiracy of the world to make you feel wretched all the time. But, sometimes (or often) people feel happier to assume that they are right and others are wrong. To each, his own!

Then there was this talk about soul mates which left me wondering for a while whether there really is such a thing - the one person who you are meant to be with. Its hard to say, but even if there is somebody like that, chances of my meeting her is very unlikely. How many people do we even meet in our lives? Even the author in the book says that 'in some universes, they (the soul mates) don't really meet'. (He regrets why he was not brave enough to talk to his wife when he first saw her, and thus lost a few years.) Clearly, you can not go about knowing every girl in this world. So then in some sense she has to be in the same geographical location! If there is a soul mate, overwhelming chances are (by simple probability) that their paths will never cross. Nobody can help it. Now then, should we be ready to accept a compromise? I meet some good looking girl. She's smart. I like her smile. I like her enthusiasm. I like being with her - because she' smart, because she has a lovely smile, and because she is full of energy. One day I decide 'okay, she's the girl for me'. I know that's partly how it works. But how do you convince yourself (or your subconscious) about it after having been fed with a lifetime of tutorial on soul mates!

"I gave my life to become the person I am right now. Was it worth it?", says the rear cover of the book. What a way to put things in perspective? 20 years hence, I too probably will be asking myself the same question. There are things that I want to do today. There are things that I can do today. There are choices I have made today. Will I regret my choices? Will I reckon that I lost too much of time doing things that I didn't really want to do? Unfortunately, these are things only time can tell. But sometimes a book like this makes you reconsider your choices. It did have some effect on me and I made certain decisions, some for the near future, some for not-so-near. Lets see how much I stick to those.

Benefit of doubt

2007-02-11T19:28:00.002-08:00

Few days back, on the yahoo mailing group of Indian students at my university, somebody forwarded a link to the videos of an MSNBC show that helps nab sexual predators. In this show, they use a decoy who chats with people pretending to be a 13 year old female and then invites them to a house for sex. The clip forwarded had two Indian software engineers from the Silicon valley who showed up at the house (for sex with a 13 year old!). One guy on the group felt that this was an attempt to defame the Indians since some people are not happy with Indians taking their jobs. He felt that this is not typical of Indians, and so the fact that they showed only Indians is defamatory. It had to be pointed out to him, by the sender of the email, that there were many more videos on the website covering all kinds of people. The sender had just chosen to forward this one clip as an example.

This first reaction of paranoia, that the other guy is at fault, is somehow trying to do you harm, is a very dangerous thing. In some way or another, this kind of attitude is at the root of lots of problems. It is very imperative that before blaming others, you get your facts right and, please, always give the other person the 'benefit of doubt' about his/her intentions. It seldom helps if you blame others as a reflexive action.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi's solution

2007-02-11T19:28:00.001-08:00

Municipal Corporation of Delhi's solution to the complaints of molestation in schools: Bar male teachers in about 1200 MCD girls schools and co-ed schools with children up to 11 yrs!

It is unbelievable. So what happens now to the thousands of teachers in such schools? Will they be relocated to other schools or will they just have to rue over the stupidity of the Municipal Corporation. And what about the schools where there are under-age teenage girls? So you remove male teachers from all except the all-boys schools. Do we even have enough female teachers to replace all the male teachers in schools?
Such one stroke solutions to problems are clearly ways for administrators to look concerned about public safety, and nothing else.

Gritty girl becomes world’s first

2007-02-11T19:27:00.001-08:00

Sheetal Mahajan became the first female on Dec. 15, 2006 to jump out of aircrafts over the north and the south poles. I am so jealous, and a fan! I, however, do not understand the concept of making world records. If you like the adrenaline rush, sky diving can be done at other places at much cheaper rates I guess. But then, she says she wanted to prove to the world a few things. Trying to get training from the Air Force officials who were not so eager to train civilians and finding sponsors for the cost of training requires a very firm determination. That is why I admire this girl. She knew what she wanted and went for it.

I wonder when I'll want something so bad that I won't let inertia come into my way.

The article is at: http://specials.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/08slid1.htm

Ecstatic Indian

2007-02-11T19:26:00.001-08:00

I have never seen a movie in which after trumping a villain, the hero/heroine says 'only a Russian/ Chinese/American/British/Canadian/Sri Lankan/Malaysian/.... can do this'. But I have seen quite a few Indian movies in which such claims are made. Right now, I am referring to the movie Rocky starring Shahrukh clone Zyed Khan. Of course, I haven't seen movies from all the countries I mentioned and probably I don't see all the crap that is made even in USA.

But surely Indians are much more capable of hyperbole and, if I may say, stupidity.

Listen

2007-02-11T19:25:00.001-08:00

There is something I do not understand. Why don't people listen? And when they do listen, why do they loose their sense of humor? Let me give a background of what prompted this piece. I am a graduate student at Penn State University and part of a yahoogroup of the Indian students that attend the school. Every once in a while, the group experiences some fervent activity. There's no predicting what may start the landslide of belligerent emails on the group. One time, it was started by the OBC reservation issue (as expected) but it graduated to so much more. By the end of it, people were fighting about the north-south divide as some hapless/ stupid/ arrogant folk wondered in text about why south-Indians always misplace the letter H in their spellings. Being inexperienced in the affairs of the world, I didn't quite expect the torrent of 20+ emails on the group within a matter of hours. I had thought it was a humorous point of note. I'd never spotted that pattern and had thought - 'interesting'. But apparently, it was not. It was outrageous.
Amidst all these, there was a group of people who demanded that no matter of any consequence be discussed on the group. That the group should be limited to posting for apartment sublets and rides to nearby cities. I then wrote an email on that group explaining why such emails should be there, how they constitute just a fraction of the junk that we receive everyday, and finally how easy it is for someone not interested in them to club such mails with all the junk and delete it.
This time it was a mildly entertaining piece on what a newcomer to US notices, forwarded by a certain somebody who had gained quite a notoriety through an earlier sequence of emails on the group. That again started a verbal conflict. Though not so heated this time, we sure received a threat to quit the group, and finally a few days later the person quit. Interesting!
One of my acquaintances has a proclivity to denounce one and all (barring a chosen few!). Whenever he denounces somebody, I ask 'why' and then may be another 'why'. For quite some time, his reply has been 'I do not want to discuss it with you'.
So why don't people listen? Is it because they get the luxury to believe that they are right? I think it is. Probably I can understand this. At one time, I was hugely upset with someone for shouting at me. When I called this person and listened to the reasons behind the outburst, I was even more frustrated. Thinking from this person's point of view, I felt 'well, may be from another perspective....'. Even though I had done nothing wrong, I had no one to vent my anger at and feel better about it. In fact, I discovered that it had become a habit with me where anyone could say anything and when I'd put myself in his/her position, I'd say 'well, maybe ...'.
I guess this is why some people don't listen. The less they listen, the more it makes them right. The better their day goes.
I, however, think that a better sense of humor will achieve the same ends.

2007-02-11T19:24:00.000-08:00

"My heart says people are inherently good, my experience says otherwise. What do you think? Are people basically good or evil?"

"I think people are just people. What they do makes them good or evil."

-Blood Diamond, Movie (A little paraphrased!)

Going green

2007-02-11T19:23:00.002-08:00

On my visit to a friend in Stanford (California) last week, I noted the stress on environmental concerns there. There are special lanes where only cars with more than 2 or 3 passengers can go to encourage people to carpool. Toilets had the signs for paper-rolls "Care for your environment. Take only what you need." I was told that California is probably the state most concerned about environmental issues. Later I came to know that there are carpool lanes in big cities of various states. This concern is certainly a good trend to follow in a country were energy consumption (and wastage) is outrageously high.

Mystery Spot

2007-02-11T19:23:00.001-08:00

The last day of my California trip, I went to the Mystery Spot in Santa Cruz with my friends. The place is a circular region of 75 ft radius in the hills of Santa Cruz where some weird behaviors are observed.

1. At the start of the tour, there are two horizontal concrete blocks (shown by a carpenter's level). Two volunteers from the crowd stand on the blocks. We note their heights and then they switch positions. Now one of them looks much shorter than before.
2. Walking uphill towards the central cabin doesn't require any more effort than walking on a horizontal plane. Walking downhill I did not feel gravity accelerating me. There was also supposed to be something about the angle at which people stood on the road, which I did not quite get.
3. A plank which seems inclined to the eyes is shown to be actually level by the carpenter's level. But a ball placed on it moves towards one side of the plank and it is not the side that seems lower! For skeptics who thought that there was something in the ball, it was also demonstrated by a bottle that one of the visitors bought from outside the place.
4. The equilibrium of a pendulum hanging from the ceiling of the central cabin seems to be at an angle from the vertical. Same thing for someone hanging from a bar in the cabin.
5. Just outside the central cabin is a plank which is higher on one side and lower on another. Volunteers are arranged in order of heights - tallest on the lower side and shortest on the higher side. Then they are asked to switch the order - shortest on the lower side and the tallest on the higher side. We expect the height difference to be even more evident now. However, now everyone seems to be of roughly the same height.
6. There's a T shaped platform which was horizontal prior to the earthquake of 1989 but is now off by only quarter of an inch (again demonstrated by a carpenter's level). I stood on the T joint and another guy who was a little taller than me stood on one end of the T. After he switches position to the other end of the T and I turn back to see him, he seems to be quite shorter than me - much more than the meager quarter of an inch.

Photographs and some articles can be seen at the official website of Mystery Spot [1]. The guide narrated a colorful story about the history of place (which is not true at all [2]) to enhance the feeling of something abnormal. We were told that people have measured change in compass direction at some regions in the Mystery Spot. However, one article said that the author did not see any abnormal compass behavior. There are theories of alien space craft buried at the location, presence of weird gravity vortex, abnormal refraction of light due to the unusually high CO2 content in the region. Some researchers [3-6] have explained the phenomenon as the illusion created due to the cabin at the center of the spot, which is tilted. Such illusion, it has been demonstrated, is magnified when the body is tilted at an angle.

That eyes deceive is not new information. But the extent to which they can deceive is astonishing. Our first reaction to the experience was that its all somehow due to the surroundings. The central house was tilted. The floor was tilted. How would we know what is horizontal and what is vertical if everything is skewed? We were told that the house was built straight but is started tilting due to the weird gravity at the place and finally settled at the current orientation 3 months after its construction. But that begs the question that if it really were not an illusion, how much does it cost to remove that house and replace it with an adjustable construction that is easy to maintain in a horizontal position. That would have answered a lot of questions.

One study [6] demonstrated that the force required to move an object may be larger than the actual force needed depending on what the mind perceives as the required force. The mind takes its cues of horizontal and vertical from the surroundings. When pilots are not able to see the horizon, they loose their sense of horizontal and vertical and sometimes hit their plane on ground thinking that they are flying level. However, it is not easy to dismiss the experience as a mere illusion. The fascination lies in understanding how the human mind behaves.

After returning from the mystery spot, we ventured several ideas to explain the illusions and rejected them. With two architects on our team, we also gave adobe photo shop a try. But we could not separate a clear source of illusions. Of course, the photos that were carelessly taken and that left a lot of room for error. We hoped we had not been rushed through the tour and that we had enough time to analyze the effects. I even wondered if we could sue the proprietors (for mental trauma!) into telling the truth!

But I still find it difficult to explain why it didn't seem to require any extra effort to move uphill or get accelerated downhill. That to me, was more a matter of concern than the differences in perceived heights or angles. But after a couple of days I considered the possibility that the climb was not steep enough to require noticeably extra effort. Another thing that I do not understand is the ball going up the plank. If the incline of plank was just an illusion while actually it was horizontal (since the carpenter's level showed it to be), why did the ball roll in the seemingly upward direction (or any direction at all). It should have stayed at the same spot.

I hope I had more time to understand it. I also did some google on Bermuda Triangle mystery. It turns out that there is nothing mysterious about Bermuda Triangle as well. The stories that are used to prove that there is something paranormal going on usually omit most of the information [7, 8]. Examples of optical illusions can be found on the web easily [9].

PS: I read that there are other places in US where such experiences are observed. The Mystery Spot of Santa Cruz is, however, out in the open giving a natural feel to the phenomenon. The experiences are also probably more complex than all other such places in US.

PS: A friend who visited the Mystery Spot recently told me that the incline on which the ball was rolled was shown to be inclined (and not horizontal, as I recalled) opposite of what it seemed visually. If he's right, then there is less of mystery to the place!

References:
1. http://www.mysteryspot.com
2. http://www.dafe.org/attractions/related/santacruzmystery/santacruzmystery.htm
3. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0909/spot.html
4. http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/p_myster.htm
5. http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/unusual/mystery.shtml
6. Bruce Bridgeman, Influence of visually induced expectation on perceived motor effect: A visual proprioceptive interaction at the Santa Cruz Mystery Spot, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2005, 12(3), 549-52.
7. http://www.unmuseum.org/triangle.htm
8. http://scientium.com/diagon_alley/commentary/editorial_concourse/mcnamara/bermyth.htm
9. http://www.scientificpsychic.com/graphics/

Junk

2007-02-11T19:22:00.001-08:00

While deleting the messages in my junk mail folder, I noticed this:

'Meet beautiful Latin singles and get free calling card'.
Just what's the connection?

Call from call centers in India

2007-02-11T19:21:00.002-08:00

The growth of the call center culture is in evidence all over. One in five calls that I receive is from some call center on behalf of a credit card company or may be a telephone company. Earlier when such a call turned out to be from India, the conversation tended to follow the following route.

X: May I speak to Mr Rohit Rai?
RR: Speaking..
X: Hello Mr Rai, how are you doing today?
RR: Fine, how are you?
X: I am doing fine too. Thanks. Mr Rai, I am calling on behalf of a telephone ...
RR: Sorry, I am not interested in a calling card right now.
X: This is not about a calling card Mr Rai. XYZ is a telephone company and we are offering international calling plans at very cheap rates.
RR: Sorry, I am not interested.
X: Mr Rai, which part of India are you from?
RR (hesitant about prolonging the conversation, but being polite) : Northern part.
X: Do you understand hindi?
RR: ann...yes.
X: Ok then main aapse hindi mein hi baat karoonga. mere liye thoda jyaada convenient feel hoga. (Eng trans: Ok then, I'll talk to you in Hindi for it will be more convenient for me).
RR: Ok...(How can I get him/her to stop?)
X: Mr Rai, aap India mein kahan se hain? (Eng trans: Where in India are you from, Mr Rai?)
RR: main __ se hoon. but __ saal main __ mein bhi tha...(What am I doing talking to this guy/gal/woman?)
X: Aap ghar mein akele hain ya bhai behan bhi hain? (Eng trans: Do you have any siblings?)
RR: ...............(Believe it or not, I answered that too).
X: .................
RR: See, no matter how much you talk to me, how much you try to convince me, I am not going to be interested in a new telephone service or a calling card.
X: Why Mr Rai?
RR: I simply don't want to go through the hassle. And, I do not trust any company I haven't even heard of.
X:
RR:
...
...
X:
RR: .....(Hang up!)

Don't you doubt that the part about my siblings or the one about my whereabouts in India are fictional. Most of this conversation very much happened to me. Now you may wonder why I ever let the conversation to wander to such extremes. Why not just nip the conversation in the bud? Well, its not always easy to be rude to people who are just trying to endear (ensnare, really) themselves to you. But, I do that now, the nipping in the bud.

Things to do before I die

2007-02-11T19:21:00.001-08:00

Since this list is of things I want to do, rather than of things I will do, and that too before I die, I will be very ambitious.
So here's the list alongwith the probability (no basis) of the events actually happening.
1. Visit at least 6/7 continents, and at least 25/whatever countries.
2. Understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics and Proof of Fermat's last Theorem. Essence is that I should be aware of what the realm of Mathematics and Physics is about.
3. Fall in love, and not question the reasons. 'Let go' type.
4. Do Bungee Jumping, sky diving, scuba diving, water surfing, gliding and fly an aeroplane.
5. Learn how to dance fluidly.
6. Learn to play one musical instrument.
7. Be able to stretch my legs 180 degree; anything approaching that will do. I mean - a reasonable degree of flexibility in body.
8. Run a marathon. Not necessarily in a ceremonial run. Point is - I should be able to run 40 km in one go.
9. Be able to speak at least 5 languages.
10. Do something in the field of education.

Parrallel worlds

2007-02-11T19:20:00.001-08:00

After watching several movies on true love, I have come up with a fundamental theorem of time and space. Here it goes:
For every guy, his girlfriend/wife/love-interest is the 'most beautiful woman' in the world. This implies that there are several parallel universes. People live in several worlds at the same time. Furthermore, a minimum for the number of parallel worlds can be obtained by considering all such love equations.

US vs India

2007-02-11T19:19:00.002-08:00

Last time when I went home and was asked by my mamaji (uncle) in a profound way about the differences I saw in America, I was a little jittery. So, here I list some of the superficial differences that I have noted, for I don't have the acute sense of perception to make any profound notes. This is a foreigner's perspective who mostly sits in his couch watching TV and is therefore more likely to be – as Jack Nicholson would put it (Something's Gotta Give)– only ‘a version of the truth’.

1. You can hear girls talk about their underwear in buses; Indian girls either do not wear any or have figured out solutions to all related problems (?).
2. Corners in US are clean and dry. There is a general cleanliness all around. The ammonia rich corners in India have been universally attributed to the nature-loving traits of Indians, and there is garbage thrown all around. I have seen Americans throw cigarette butts without caring to figure out if it lands in a bin. The ubiquitous cleanliness is mainly because US is a rich country. Jhaadu lagane ke liye bhi machine hai (There are machines even for brooming). A person sitting in a mobile air blower does the rounds to blow off leaves or another one comes around in another machine for cutting grass. When the surrounding are so clean, nobody would like to dirty it up. I believe campuses of Infosys and Wipro must be clean. Secondly, US mein koi paan nahi khata hai (people don't eat beetle-nut in US).
3. Kids generally learn to swim by the time they are 10 (partly because there are many swimming pools). People do more than studying – some skate, others roller blade, juggle, play some sport, swim, or any other of the myriad activities. No wonder US gets so many Olympic medals.
4. Some students in 2nd year engineering course do not know the formula for volume of a sphere.
5. Ethics is a big issue. Cheating in exams is not as omni-present as it is in India.
6. Cars stop to let the pedestrians cross – something I have rarely seen in my 20+ yrs in India.
7. A friend in my college gave me the following advice: 'Never ever ask if something is allowed or not for they always reply in the negative'. This does not seem to apply to people at Pennsylvania State University. Every University official is eager to find a way out to help you if you ask politely.
8. You say 'hi' to bus drivers when you get in and 'thank you' or 'good night' when you get off.
9. There is enormous consumption of energy in United States. Here, cars are the main mode of transport, rather than buses or trains. Almost everything is done with electric machines. For example, something like brooming the roads which is done manually in India is done by suction pumps here. I can't recall seeing any TV advertisement on conservation of natural resources like gas (petrol), or electricity. Remember the ads in India (do they still come on Doordarshan?) promoting the habit of switching off lights when you leave the room?
10. There are advertisements, though, promoting people to spend more time on dinner table as opposed to eating out. Speaking of advertisements, the most common ones are of auto insurance and pharmaceuticals. In India, I guess Pepsi and Coke beat the others hands down.
11. Paper has substituted hanky. I wonder what would happen to seat-reservation through hankies were the tissue-paper culture to invade India. Will people queue for a restroom before the arrival of their train?
12. People of both gender can be seen in their shorts running on sidewalks any time of the day, any time of the year, even when it snows or it is a summer noon, and they are not considered lunatics.

13. If you make a ruckus during the night, your neighbors in US are much more likely to call the cops rather than beat you up.
14. Hansi to phansi does not work in US. Every girl smiles at you.

PS. About Point #1, I just wanted to point out that here in US people talk very freely in public places without caring about what others may hear and think. The line about Indian girls was just a bit of humor (at least I thought so). But after some reactions, I thought a clarification is in place though I am not sure how clear the clarification is. I hope I don't offend too many people.

The good things about Christmas

2007-02-11T19:19:00.001-08:00

I have never been very high on Christmas, except of course for the delicious Christmas cakes that papa would get from one or the other of his nurses. Christmas in India is not a big thing. Rarely do I see Christmas trees. But here in USA, Thanksgiving and Christmas are BIG. Downtown State College is decorated with illuminated trees as early as one month before Christmas. Colleges become vacant on Thanksgiving as students rush home for family gatherings. Non-resident students take up the opportunity to visit some city they haven't been to. About a month before the big day, TV channels start telecasting Christmas movies and new ones are released in theaters. The sweetness of these movies has its own charm. I might as well say that after watching several Christmas movies over the last few days I have become a big fan of the concept of forgiveness. All these create a sense of celebration, a festive mood that lasts about a month.
The talk of Christmas reminds me of Diwali in older days, when I was younger. The task of soaking diyas in water a day before, followed by drying and finally the decoration of our house was a much awaited event. Crackers and fireworks were the delights and we very much wanted to bring in a 'chhoti diwali'. Even more enjoyable was the collection of diyas the morning after. I don't really recall what we did with them and I cannot think of any possible use. It has been ages since I last enjoyed doing that. The attraction of fireworks has died as I have become more of a boring kind, even as the festivities have lost their charm in general. I hope I will get to spend the next Holi with friends though.

Newsworthy!

2007-02-11T19:18:00.000-08:00

There is a piece on rediff.com on Priyanka Chopra's statement that live shows are tougher. I was surprised to see a small write-up created out of nothing at all. Journalism really takes talent!

Wisdom

2007-02-11T19:17:00.002-08:00

It is a wonder how something you have heard so many times that it became almost a cliche, can still come as an epiphany. Being a big time critic of junk cinema and illogical sob stories, I often tend to wonder why this kind of cinema gets made. Of course, I have been told how good a medium it is to turn black money into white. But it somehow never satisfies me. Perhaps because even though it would explain the production of junk cinema (movies of the kind Neha Dhupia stars in) it would not explain the creation of melodramatic sob stories (which actually make money). Then one day, it came to me as an epiphany - there is a market for it and so there is the product. There is no other reason, no other justification. Because people like preachiness and stupidity, not to mention skimpily clad lead actresses being prudish about even more skimpily dressed actresses, Mohabbatein gets made. There is nothing really wrong with it, I guess. If I don't like it, I can avoid it.
It is not that the rationale is anything insightful, or even original. On the contrary, it is quite obvious and quotidian. But still, it was a moment of wisdom for me. Isn't it what they say, 'to be smart is to see reason, to be wise is to accept reality'?

PS: I am not sure whether that is a saying, but I guess somebody in some part of the world must have said/written it or something like it, and probably I have heard that. I wanted to be a little bit extra cautious particularly after some anonymous fella commented 'saale chor' on one of my blogs!

Funny?

2007-02-11T19:17:00.001-08:00

In the greeting card section of a general store I saw a "Sympathy" section. Is it funny?

Goals, life and…

2007-02-11T19:16:00.000-08:00

My father used to tell me (still does sometimes) that I should have a goal in life. My mamaji (uncle) would tell the same to all of us kids during the family gatherings. 'Lakshya hona chahiye' in life. I never really understood why they would say it as if that was the most virtuous thing in life. I never had a goal and I was pretty happy. So are a lot of others, it seemed to me.

I have never had a goal in life. Yes, minor things I have wanted, sure. But not a goal in life. And I had a pleasant run. Life, before I started thinking about significance of things, was carefree. It started with a period of self-doubt, the 'figuring-out' time of a normal teenager. Once over with that stuff, I started thinking about the meaning of life, and goals in reference to that.

I think sometimes, or have thought often in the past, about the meaning of life. The more I thought, the more I got convinced that there's no meaning that humans can discover. Where can you even start to think about it? Sure there have been people, yogis and all, who have meditated and claimed to have understood a part of it. I have talked to some of their followers. One person whom I considered rational enough told me that the aim of life is 'to do one's duty' and the duty is 'to be in harmony with nature'. I got curious as to how one would define being 'in harmony with nature'. I never have understood these things. The first time I was told humans are destroying nature by making non-biodegradable products, I wondered why they wouldn't say 'nature, as we know it'. I wondered, if humans are part of nature, how it can be that what they do is unnatural. It may be that what they do will go towards destroying the human race and probably life as we know it, but that does not make it going against the nature. We can not do anything unnatural. But I figured that the whole idea of 'natural' and 'unnatural' is a cryptic way of saying the whole thing, and in the process glorifying or deifying the concept. So that it becomes sort of 'you dare not do it, it is unnatural'. But I don't like this route. The short cut, I mean. I like things explicitly stated, for which I am often ridiculed, playfully most of the times. For one thing, I do not understand things until that are not explicitly mentioned (I am a little thick-headed). For another, I think that it lays the recipe for blunders. For example, one can declare that gay-marriage is 'unnatural' and so it should be banned. That, you see, is my problem. I would like you to take the longer route and explain it to me how homo-sexuality, being unnatural, does more harm to people than it does good to the concerned. I could decide by the longer route, but not by the plain fact that it is unnatural.

So getting back to the point from where I digressed, I got curious by 'the goal of life is to do one's duty' and 'duty is to be in flow with nature'. I sort of knew I won’t get any answer that could satisfy me. But I pursued my queries – what is it to be in flow with nature? – to begin with. To some answers, I asked how one knows that. The answer - many yogis have told us. Okay, I believe things that I read in books. That earth revolves around the sun, that the life cycle of so and so micro-organism is this many milli-seconds, or whatever. Things that I believe not because I know them first hand but because I have faith, in experiments, and in scientists of the world. But clearly this faith is different from the former and the one that is commonly talked about. The difference is that these facts are open to be tested by anyone based on the experiences since one is born and on the only tool that humans have to figure things out - reason. That does not mean that it is the supreme reality. I am open to the idea that the worldly reason is too limited in its scope to understand the ultimate reality. Believing that there might exist an entity (aatma) in all living things, that makes things living and has not yet been identified by any characterisation technique, is not that 'unscientific'. But it takes a giant leap to believe that somebody knows that aatmas exist and they unite into parmatma after so many years and then there's pralaya in which all aatmas are created or destroyed or whatever. It gives the impression of being a creation of a fertile mind that has forsaken wordly reason - but only partly and not in its entirety - to create a mythic picture.

There's no way of knowing if it is true. They say what we see and hear is an illusion. What if what we experience during meditation is a higher level of illusion? It is highly likely. 'You know I lied. The truth is ...'. Doesn’t that make it more true than saying it the first time round. 'You see, he lied earlier. But now he's confessed to the truth.' Or, ‘I was in darkness. But now, I see the light.’

The way I see it is: illusion is a must if you need to survive and be happy. Either illusion, or indifference. It depends on the person which level of illusion he is comfortable with. Most people are indifferent. Some, like the meditators, really think that they know the TRUTH, as they put it. But probably, they are under a different level of illusion – ‘I was lost. But now I have found the WAY.' In my view, they have just accepted the fact that they can not know it all, and everything unexplained is attributable to some unmutable law which one should not bother to question. That is, they have settled for another version of the world that soothes their sense of adventure and exploration and they are content with that. Which, to be frank, is excellent. Since one can not know much about the world, it is all a matter of what makes you content and happy.

Getting back to the original point of digression, if you can not know what the TRUTH is, what does it mean to have a goal? And the answer lies in the previous jumble of words. Illusion and indifference. Everybody needs something to create that illusion and indifference. Who says GOD is unkind? Hasn’t he given the mechanism in brain that alleviates the mental trauma of disillusionment, the state when you know that you know nothing and can know nothing but have to go on nevertheless because you don't have the courage to end it?

So my mamaji and Papa were right. I should have a goal. I need that illusion to survive. I know now that even if it is not the most virtuous of ideals, it is a worthwhile illusion.

Here's a quote from a great philosopher:

How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be when there's no help in the truth. -Sophocles, (495-405 BCE)

Is it a ‘bye’ or 'byee'

2007-02-11T19:15:00.001-08:00

I never knew how to say a 'bye'. Reason can be attributed to God's evil scheme which deprived me the company of females during my 'formative years'. After all, you can't expect someone who grew up among semi-goons in an all-boys boarding school to develop the etiquettes that only female presence can provide.

I, in fact, never knew that I lacked the basic bye-etiquette. Going into college, I was as aloof from technology as a Gorakhpuri could be in pre 2K era. So I was not net-savvy or chat savvy by any standards. By the time I started chatting on Yahoo! and my family and friends away from college became net-literate, I was already molded. It was my cousin sister who first brought my attention to this problem of mine. One evening, after a half an hour or so of chatting, she said she had to go - 'I gotta go'. I replied, 'Ok then, bye' (or was it just 'bye'?). BIG MISTAKE. 'You were just waiting for this!'. I thought, 'What? If you got to go, you got to go!!!' But that was my immature self. It has taken a few times with various individuals over several years to finally understand to some extent the bye-etiquette. Here are a few tips for unfortunate souls like me.

How to say a bye..

1. 'okkk.... bbyeee...talk to you later then' is the least you should do.
2. Never reply a 'bye', especially the first 'bye' (or for that matter a 'got to go') with a simple 'bye'. Most people don't mean what they say. A 'got to go' probably means 'I eventually have to go'. So, let there be several bye's before you finally sign out.
3. If you have to leave, start the byes at least 15 mins before you really have to go. Say 'bye' followed by another totally unconnected sentence, but one that is sure not to start a new thread of conversation.
4. 'Byeee' is better than a simple bye. the more e's the better..or for that matter a few extra b's and y's won't do much harm either. Show as much enthusiasm as possible. I think people take it as a measure of how glad you are to have talked to them.
5. Bye or bye.... -- connecting the dots. People see the dots and read more than there is to read. Like u don't want to leave, not just yet, no matter u r missing your bus or class, it kills you to quit the chat. So, always keep a few dots handy.
6. :( - Nothing beats a sad emoticon. Oh how you wish you could chat a little longer!
7. All said and done, perhaps an equally important thing is you have to be very alert, always on your toes. The very fact that I am writing this piece indicates that I have slipped a couple of times in recent past. Remember that no theory is any good unless brought in practice. :)

I quote

2007-02-11T19:14:00.000-08:00

It is not the questions you ask, but the answers that satisfy you, that truly reflect your intelligence.

Need to be more civilized

2007-02-11T19:13:00.002-08:00

A Professor in MP was chased and probably beaten to death by some student leaders a couple of weeks ago. That demonstrates the state most of the universities are in India. They serve mainly as the breeding ground for wannabe politicians. The education most of these univerties give is a joke. In 11th and 12th, I had a Math teacher who had a PhD from Gorakhpur University. Let me give you a picture of what sort of class his was. Class on straight lines - "Rekhhaaaa... Rekha ke chaar pati the", with eyes always on the balcony. He couldn't write 2 consecutive lines on the board without looking at RS Agarwal. Teaching for him meant, copying lines from that book. Physics teacher was better, but only slightly. I can go on and on for ever describing all the teachers in my school but that's not the point. (Besides, it can be a post in itself)
Beating up a Professor is not so uncommon is India. In fact, beating up anyone is not so uncommon. But beating up a Professor or a government official often takes the form "He deserved it". I don't know about that. Probably he did. Probably he was the greatest S** o* * B**** alive. But beating up somebody is not the way to get things right. Forgive me if you think I am being a Gandian but there are other ways to set things right. I say 'forgive me', because it has become very fashionable to belittle Gandhi, one of the greatest men ever.
What is particularly appalling is the value given to any creation. When I see buses burning, or even cracked glasses in buses, and other signs of vandalism, I feel disgusted. How can anybody destroy something that takes so much effort to build and is worth much more than the rupees invested? I don't care what their excuse is. To me, (if there is meaning to anything) human effort, or any effort, is sacred and such acts of vandalism are blasphemy. Same applies to supposedly trivial matters like destroying ant-hills for play, kids throwing stones at moving trains, and throwing garbage in the right place. Ever wondered how much effort will be saved, and how beautiful the country would be, if everybody took care of their own mess? Those who don't understand these are not fit to talk about anyone's rights, right and wrong, or any such lofty ideals.
There is an urgent need to have a look into the condition of institutes of higher eduction and our own society to correct some of extremely dangerous trends and attitudes.

Greatest Evil

2007-02-11T19:13:00.001-08:00

I seem to have stumbled upon the greatest vice that humans have - Laziness. Believe Pandit Sri Ram Sharma Acharya if not me; after all, he's written more than 5000 books (as per one follower). He said -"Aalasya se badhkar adhik ghaatak aur adhik sameepvarti shatru doosra nahi hai (There is no greater or closer foe than laziness)". You fail because you are lazy, not because you are incapable. Laziness not just in the form "let me sleep a little more". Laziness in all its manifestations, inertia being the prime avatar. If you think of it, so many problems of the world can be solved if peopple just come out of their stupor. Terrorism is an example of the zeal of a few winning over the inertia of so many.
There are so many things that I want to do, or wanted to do at one point. At one point, I had thought of opening a school for good primary and secondary education, and teaching there for a while. I want to understand essentials of economics, biology, the umpteen fields of materials science, learn about various fields of Physics and Mathematics, learn ice-skating, roller-skating, to speak several languages, do bunjee jumping, sky-diving, scuba diving, visit all the places in the world, and so many other things. If you think, the want-to-do list is too long, let me tell you it is not. Life is long enough to be able to do everything under the sun. But, I haven't done even a small fraction of that. My daily input towards any productive work is a recipe for disaster. When at the end of several weeks, I look back to figure out the reasons, its always that single devil - laziness, inertia, and the likes. There have been times when I have caught myself being lazy in most unforgivable circumstances, like finalizing a journal paper. I catch myself avoiding searching a paper to verify facts, or proving some formula, and then thankfully I wake up.
Consider this: What do you do if you think you have a problem, a vice? You work hard at getting it out of your system. But what if the vice is that you can not work hard enough? That's why laziness is an extremely dangerous enemy. You can't beat it. In fact, the very existence of this evil makes me sort of fatalist. Is there really a free will? Are you sure?

Of Omkara, clarity and tragedy

2007-02-11T19:12:00.001-08:00

Watched Omkara. Amazing direction, acting, everything. But as I watched the movie, there was this constant feeling that I may end up feeling sorry for somebody if I get involved with the story (I knew the plot beforehand). I considered watching the movie in several sessions - 1 hr today, may be a half tomorrow and then may another half an hour or 15 mins the next day - just to avoid watching someone being wronged, even if it is just a fiction. But indecision about when exactly to stop resulted in a single session viewing. Thankfully, it was not too bad. I didn't feel for the characters that strongly. In the end, it was okay as far as I am concerned. Omkara dies, Dolly dies, Langda Tyagi dies, his wife (Konkana Sen) dies. So there's no one left to live a miserable life of repentance or to brood over the past. Kesu most probably succeeded Omkara and the confusion with Bips - what was her name? - must have resolved. In any case, it didn't come out from the movie that Kesu had any specially strong feelings for Omkara or Dolly. So, after may be a month or two of mourning, it will be okay for him. So it was all okay. Things would, of course, have been different if I believed in life after death. As Omkara says - 'shareer se to mukti mil jaayegi, par aatma .....'
Another thing: I often wonder why people don't talk clearly. I mean, just confront the other person and give him a chance to speak. Before shooting the guy, let him know what his fault is. He may lie through his teeth if that's what he does, and there's a risk you may believe the lies, but you are much better off not crucifying somebody for nothing. If he is guilty you have the satisfaction that he died knowing that he paid for his mistakes. Dying is no punishment. The realization that what you did was a mistake, is. Though this was an extreme case, the need for getting rid of round about talk holds a lot of significance even in normal circumstances. World would be so much simpler if people just talked clearly and stopped relying on the other guys intelligence to interpret insinuations and subtle hints. But there are risks too. Sometimes, if you do insist on clarity, you may be considered stupid, or an android, or in certain circumstances, even worse. Trust me, I speak from personal experience.
Finally, why do people make tragedies? All stories should have happy endings. At least the fiction stuff. What good does a Shakespearean tragedy - which is so tragic that it does not even have the excuse of being realistic - do? Why do writers set out to make a tragedy? If the story is something which can not have a realistically happy ending, its fine that it ends in a sad way. Hazaaron Khwahishen Aisi is a good example of that. Making a Mrityudand which deals with women in general is much more pertinent than making a Daman in which a woman is tormented by her psycho husband. The former is realistic and relevant while the latter is a forced tragedy.

Party tonight

2007-02-11T19:11:00.000-08:00

I don't like parties. I feel like I am expected to enjoy at a party talking to people I hardly know. I agree that's how people get to know others, and be friends with them with time. But still, I am seldom interested in small talk about other guy's research or daily schedule and would much rather prefer being lost in my own reveries most of the time. Frankly, one of the greatest mysteries for me is what do two people talk about when they meet the first time. For me conversation starts with 'which department' or 'I am Rohit' and ends with a simarly inane statement. If I talk more than that I feel like I am forcing myself. There's also this small issue of having no sense of humor when it comes to my acquaintances to most of whom I haven't warmed up yet.
But I liked this party I attended today. There was music and a dance arena, so to say. I knew just the optimum number of people - not too many that you become overwhelmed by the prospect of having to go through the routine of mundane HIs and HELLOs with people you don't give a damn about, and enough people at the same time that you can talk to and share a joke with. And yes, I wasn't great buddies with any of the people. Ironically, that's what saved that day for me. That gave me ample time to settle, and get in the mood for dance. It was fun. I was enthusiastic enough that people asked why I was acting drunk without drinking. But still, it never ever was close to the crazy head jerking of college days, with hair all sweaty and tshirt all wet. Is it the life after undergrad, or is it just me?

Bliss bothers me ...

2007-02-11T19:10:00.000-08:00

I was walking towards the bus stop to return home one evening when I passed by the Art Fest stalls and the orchestra. I decided to stay there and 'enjoy' the ambience of a fest. It was a long time since I had last attended a fest - probably my college fest in 2004. So I sat in front of the Old Main and watched kids play with their parents while the orchestra played engaging songs. There was this toddler with an amazing smile walking on all fours on the grass towards his dad who kept walking backwards as this little guy came nearer. Then there were a couple of little cuties doing somersaults, a little one tirelessly doing frontrolls, and several others frollicking around their parents. I don't know what people mean when they say 'blissful'. But at that moment, sitting at the center of tireless energy of joyous kids with good music to back it up, I thought - probably this that I am feeling, is bliss. I enjoyed the feeling for quite a while, and then I grew restless. I decided to take that bus to my apartment and started walking to the stop. But as I neared the stage, the gathering of people dancing in front of the podium drew me closer. I stood there for a while, again enjoying the happiness of those people, feeling blissful. I thought - I want to be happy like these people. Bliss bothers me.
There was a 'phase' a few years back when this sort of bliss would have bothered me immensely. I would see a cute kid, or a girl with an amazing smile, or an object of great beauty, and I would wonder if there's a cure. The problem with abstract things like beauty is that you can not touch it and feel closer to it. They are not like a great meal - you eat it and the hunger is quenched. When I hear some of the songs that I used to hear during my summer training in Jamshedpur, I feel a connection that only music can make you feel. I can see myself lying on the short cement wall beside my room watching the starry sky.
But extremely fortunately, I am much better equipped now to handle the pressures of bliss.

My beef with ...

2007-02-11T19:09:00.000-08:00

Yes, I borrowed the title from an Indian Express article heading. So what? It suits this write up well enough. I have issues with a lot of things. I can not go into all of them in a simple article. This time its just about a little something which I won't or can't name in a few words. I read The Alchemist a few years back. I was told by a very good friend of mine that it was THE BOOK. Popularity of such proportion among the well read intelligentsia that automatically warrants a 'you didn't understand it' response on every occasion of someone not liking the book. Readers of one kind really don't care much about it and are proud that they are not philosopher's enough to enjoy the book. That itself enhances the intellectual edge of the book. I read it. Didn't like it. Tried to explain that to a very good friend, and got that very same response with such a speed that I couldn't separate 'you' from 'it'. That very same friend told me about 'Veronica Decides To Die'. The subject, as described by him, sounded interesting - a girl has everything going fine in her life, and therefore she decides to die. Intriguing - because I had given considerable thought to meaning of life and all such useless, crazy stuff and I thought 'Wow, somebody has written a book on it'. I considered the disappointing experience of The Alchemist probably a personal idiosyncracy, or a minor blemish on the illustrious writer's record which, fortunately for him, enough people liked to make it a bestseller. Man, was I disappointed! For those who haven't read the book, and even more for those who have, I'll state my version of Veronica Decides to Die. This girl is beautiful, supposedly smart, has a boyfriend, nothing to worry about and she decides to die. Why? Because she feels she has seen everything there is in this world to see, and any more time spent in this world will just be more of the same routine. That boredom is killing her so badly that her concern for her parents can't keep her from taking the extreme step. She spares some thought about her mom and dad, what will happen to them, and how will the world interpret her letter about why a big French magazine should know where Slovenia is. But that's about it. She takes some pills - to avoid bodily disfiguration that may shock her parents - and awakes in a mental asylum. She's told that she has only so much time to live (a week, if I recall right). Living in that place, talking with some people who the society considers crazy (but are really people who don't give two hoots to what anyone else thinks), and a special somebody, she realizes that her life was monotonous only because she has let it be. That there is so much to see, so much to do.
So tell me, why would anyone like to read the book? Yes, there were interesting portions. The build up was interesting; Veronica's thought process before she kills herself was interesting. But the moment I completely realized the reason why she decides to die, SHE'S JUST A STUPID GIRL is what I thought. I can understand if someone says that everything is MAYA and that there is no apparent reason to go on living. After all, what does it even mean to be living? I can understand it as clearly as any another thing - though still not completely. If this person comes to me next day and tells me that he or she has discovered the meaning of life, a la some meditators, I'll immediately be skeptical of his revelation, or intelligence per se. But this girl realizes that life is not monotonous! That she's made it so! What a revelation! So life is worth living! What a joy! No more suicides out of boredom! Let's celebrate.
Yes, I understand that craziness is relative. I have been called one once or twice! I understand madmen are simply people 'who just like to be themselves.' So what's new? Unless this concept was invented by Paulo Coelho, why would I be interested in reading a cliché?
Then there is this other thing - Why does Paulo Coelho feel the need to introduce spirits and Gods to solve problems like in The Alchemist, or sometimes apparently for no reason at all, as in Veronica Decides To Die. The Alchemist was a very well written book. I almost loved it....until I reached the end. The premise was good, again. Something like – 'If you want something and work hard to get it, the whole world conspires to let it happen'. What a brave new statement? What can be more encouraging than being assured that everyone, in some way or another, is contriving in your favor? I was intrigued. There was a romantic angle too which kept me a little more interested. So I neared the end waiting to see - HOW? And how? Gods intervened. Winds blew and what not. Finally the boy realizes that the location of the 'khazana' he saw in his dream is just ....Let me not break the suspense for those who still want to read the book. In Veronica Decides to Die, a woman's spirit leaves her body during insulin shocks and roams around and visits the other room where she hears her doctor telling somebody to end her treatement. Don't get me wrong. I am not against existence of Gods or spirits. I believe I haven't seen a lot many things and this is possible. I am also willing to accept that logic and reason have their limitations, though this is not one such case. But one thing I can't possibly understand that isn't there any reason other than the interfering Gods that one should strive to be the best. How about saying - hey you dumbo, here's the situation. You try to get it, your chances are 60%, you sit there and whine, 0.0001% (the percent may vary depending upon individual case). Why is that not sufficient? Why do you want to make a theist out of me to make me understand that I should be courageous to pursue my dreams? And I won't even go into the idea of believing an actual dream, literally, let alone pursuing. Now this is the point where I am most vulnerable to that 'you didnt get it' line – ‘there was a symbolism there’, they will say. My one line response to it should be 'my friend, it is you who does not get it (what I have been saying).' But to add just a little more, and loose at the same time some of the sheen that such an arrogant one liner can give you, - If you are a child dealing with fairy tale, that's a perfect story. But for adults well versed with 'some form of worldly reason', please for heaven's sake give a real reason, and a real motivation. I don’t see it boding well even with the Gita talk of 'karm hi pooja hai'.
Here I'll shift gears abruptly to Black. The Amitabh-Rani movie that won all the awards that year. I didn't like it. Understatement. I hated it...exaggeration, but closer. Another why... I read the story in a paragraph somewhere and I had tears in my eyes. I saw the movie. I laughed. I laughed at Amitabh. No, Not so much at him, as much as at the director. The movie was so much concerned with the histrionics of Amitabh as a drunk, schizophrenic teacher that it almost forgot what Hellen Keller's story is about. Audiences loved the movie all the more. Perhaps a Miracle Worker wouldn’t have worked. It had real characters, a real teacher, real problems and no schizophrenia to explain and warrant 'attractive' wierdities (is that a word?). I don't care if Black had amazing direction - I don't even know what it is. And I don’t care about the gorgeous lighting. Where's the real story?
So to make the connection easier, why do people find loud so much appreciable. No, not Mallika Sherawat kind of loud. But still, subtly loud. I see exaggerations made by the dozen, mediocrities branded excellence, and excellence gone unnoticed. Why can't things be appreciated as they are? Why does one have to be a little corrupt to be considered integral....Why does one have to lie in job interviews? Why isn’t the worthy always given its worth?

Missing

2007-02-11T19:08:00.002-08:00

I am asked sometimes if I miss some particular person. I have heard people say they miss other people. All I can do is smile. I have never missed anyone. Sometimes when I am on a rear window seat of a car and the wind blows by my face, I think about the times of college days, specifically the feeling I had in one of my i-don't-want-to-talk moods. Times when I would walk under the yellow street light in the Institute campus, or walk with my face up looking at the star-lit sky, or sit with a friend in the evenings in the stadium, or sometimes just go to a friend's room and do nothing - just sit there and maybe hear him talk. Times spent with my family, those moments of pure fun. I 'miss' those times. But it is not a specific person that I miss. And I have a great family and great friends. One evening when I realized that from then on, I won't be talking to a friend that often, being in different time zones, I had a feeling that may be termed as one of missing someone. But again, I will not be missing the person. I will just miss the conversation, that too only once in while (like while at the window seat of a car :)) . I lost myself here.......I think I wanted to say that nobody misses anybody, or that the term is confusing/misleading. Saying that you miss somebody is just a way of saying that you haven’t found anyone else to talk to or to spend and enjoy the time with. I feel a vacuum sometimes, but I can’t point specifically what is missing.

If I were a celebrity

2007-02-11T19:08:00.001-08:00

There are times I miss being a celebrity. Sometimes I read something and I find a statement that I feel I own, or it expresses some feeling that I have been having with for so long. Some time back, I was pestered by people into explaining why I would suddenly smile during a conversation, or sometimes when apparently nothing was funny. I couldn't explain what I was thinking. Partly because I was afraid they would think what a weirdo I am, and partly because I felt they wouldn’t see what is so funny with that. So, humor explained is humor lost, I thought, sort of. I said that to a friend and she said that she's heard it somewhere. I said it can’t be. I am the one who coined it. Later I went back and did a Google. You guessed right, if you did. I found it there. Probably, I read it somewhere and identified with it so bad that I imagined myself coining it. Or maybe I did coin it, independently. Or maybe the words were just floating around in the subconscious of my mind, then just at the tip of my tongue, when I read it somewhere. If I were a celebrity, say a writer or something, and somebody paid any attention to me, and wondered aloud why I might be laughing at something, I'd say - Humor explained is humor lost, you see. And that would be quoted somewhere, probably in 'A Word A Day'.
I'll list a couple of others that I think somebody stole from my mind, He he he.

I could be wrong now, but I don't think so. - From Monk, a comedy serial on TV.

If the world were merely seductive, that would be easy. It it were merely challenging, that would be no problem. But I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day. -E.B. White, writer (1899-1985)

And yes, my elder brother used to say 'aisa hi hoon main (I am as I am)', long before Ajay Devgan made it famous with Pyar to hona hi tha.

Gibberish

2007-02-11T19:07:00.001-08:00

I went outside about 15 mins back and looked at the sky above me as is my wont these days, and what a sight! A large patch of cloud was blocking the sun, which crept from behind by the edges of the cloud giving it the famed silver lining. Not that I haven't seen a cloud in the sky before. But this one definitely made me miss a 8 MP, 12x zoom kind of camera.

The other day, while walking in front of Old Main and feeding and 'talking' to squirrels, I wondered why is it that people haven't yet figured out any of the animal languages. I don't even know if there is an elaborate sign language among animals for every word, every emotion. But surely animals 'talk' among themselves. Is it more difficult to figure out this language, and develop a device that could enable each humans to talk to animals, than it is to fathom the concept of wave-particle duality, or matter-energy duality? Yes, I have seen the discovery channel programmes on the communication between whales through whistles. But that's not what I mean.

Gibberish it is!

Frustrated with politics

2007-02-11T19:06:00.002-08:00

Since the day the announcements of quota for OBC's were first made, I have been following the news with disgust and hope. My first reaction to the announcement was of befuddlement at the limited extent of imagination of our politicians. We had all prayed for Murli Manohar Joshi to loose the elections after his messy attempts at regulating the elite institutes of our country. But Arjun Singh reminds me of the Chinese proverb - Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it. To all the questions raised by the protesters, the only answer the HRD minister could give was 'The Parliament has taken a decision and we have to implement it'. As if the Parliament ever takes a right decision. We should better keep a watch at any legislation that gets passed unanimously, because those are the ones with the potential of most damage. In this reference, I'd say that Congress is the probably the worst political party. Communists are scorned all over for their pre-historic views of economy and society. Indian communists are known for their opposition to any progressive development. BJP has its share of issues with its Hindu bias. But at least these parties have some “ideology” unlike Congress whose only raison d'etre is to be a sycophant to the Gandhi clan, and that is their only ideology. This is the only party that is capable of unprecedented disasters. This is only party that can enforce Emergency to ensure that the party remains in power, this is the only party that can promulgate a law (Shah Bano case) to counter a secular Supreme Court judgement and call that secularism, only to ensure its political gains, and now this is the only party that can play politics with the life of the brightest brains of the nation to garner some electoral votes that I hope people see reason enough not to cast in their favor. The whole process makes me a cynic and I again question the inherent good and rationality in humans. To the assertions, by the directors of various institutes, of their inability to increase the intake without a consequential decrease in quality, the government has no answer. By government, I mean Arjun Singh, because the PM does not seem to have Sonia Gandhi's permission to speak out. But he wants students to have FAITH in him! He sure has a sense of humor. Among the absurdest claims I have heard in support of the reservations let me list a few: 1. By Prof. Jayati Ghosh: IITs have poor ranking internationally. So anyway these institutes are not that great. So why worry so much about how the quality of student intake. Similar comments by a some others like the one I read somewhere: There was only no reservation for OBCs for so long in these elite institutes. What good did they achieve? It is a shame that somebody from such elite institute as JNU, will dare to utter such a stupid piece of logic. And the hilarity of this logic was appropriately pointed to by Prof. Balakrishnan of IITD. 2. Some MP in parliament claimed that HoD in IIT Madras is biased against backward classes and therefore many such students don't pass the exams. For anyone who knows anything about IIT life, it would be a blasphemy to suggest the possibility. There is hardly any bias against students by Professors except for the criterion of sincerity in student for his academics. As for among students, the ones from SC/ST get elected to Hall bodies and Student Gymkhana all the time. Not many people are even aware of other persons caste. 3. The OBCs constitute more than 50% of the Indian population (a dubious claim). Upper castes constitute only 15% of the population. We have left 50% seats for them. What more do they want? So, why do you stop at that? Do a census and determine (if at all it can be honestly determined) what percentage of population belongs to IQ level below 90. Reserve seats for them, if you find them to be in minority. National Sample Survey Organisation has put the % of population in OBC category as 32 (National Family and Health Survey puts it at 29.8, as opposed to 52% put by Mandal Commission). According to NSSO, 23.5% of seats in universities are already occupied by OBC students. So, again, why do we need reservations, for OBCs? Yadav's dominate the political scene in UP and Bihar. One of my best friends is a Yadav. I didn’t see any discrimination he suffered as a result of belonging to that class. A rediff article by Francis Goutier dealt with how the condition of Brahmins is worse then dalits. But who cares? How many votes do they account for? So many people are protesting and the government goes ahead and makes the decision with all secrecy of some covert operation, all the time asking for students to have FAITH in them, and going ahead with the proposals without even considering any of the objections to the policy. Not even a seemingly innocuous demand, like instituting a non-political party to examine the efficacy of the reservation system, was granted. Who do they think they were fooling with their committee of Arjun Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, and two other morons whose name escapes my mind? It was clear from word go that they had no intention of being rational. It all seems like a magic wand. "We'll impose reservations and increase the seats". How? Do you have a plan to ensure that the quality is not affected? In that case, can you please let others know what you have in mind? Or is it that you can not comment because ‘Parliament has taken a decision’ and the Parliament has no obligation of being right, rational or answerable? And please can anyone tell me when we will decide that the backward classes are no more backward. Perhaps when the forward classes become backward enough? Or when they multiply to constitute a greater portion of the vote bank? Or perhaps when as a result of pandering to the masses and neglecting the virtue of merit, the nation gets sunk deep into a quagmire? When and on what basis will the government make that judgment of giving merit a little of the infinite respect it deserves? I sincerely hope, and appeal, to those agitating against the reservation policy that they don’t give up yet. Let’s try a little longer.

Labels

2007-02-11T19:06:00.001-08:00

"Once you label me you negate me." I came across this quote by Soren Kierkegaard a few days back. Even though I understood then what it meant, the real significance comes to me only now. Amir Khan is 'anti-dam' and 'anti-gujarat'. And protesting students are selfishly 'elitist' and ‘anti-affirmative action’. Period. Guilty as charged. There's no hiding place. No matter Amir never said anything that could be even remotely considered anti-dam, by people of reasonable intelligence, I mean. No matter none of the protesting bodies has questioned the idea of affirmative action, but all concerned only question the implementation.

Quota Issue: Losses and gains

2007-02-11T19:05:00.000-08:00

Much of the turbulent times of protests are over with the Supreme Court order to medicos to stop the strike. The decision to call off the strike by resident doctors was the right one after the court decided to look into the issue because a lot of patients were suffering due to the strike. But the court order is not for the engineering students and students of other universities and they should take the baton now and keep the protests alive until the government comes out with a reasonable plan of action. Hunger strike and demonstrations that stall all work can not go on for ever. Pretty soon there will be exams and students will have to go back to classes. Alternative ways of protestations, that can be sustained over a longer period, should be explored.
The agitation has achieved quite a few things in the due process but, unfortunately, has missed a very important point. Starting with the gains, the fact that SC is looking into the issue should be a consolation prize and must raise some hopes. Moreover, the protesters have succeeded in increasing awareness about the issue and the government has got enough bad press which may be a lesson for politicians like Arjun Singh who act on their whims and fancies keeping rational in the backseat. Furthermore, the government decision to increase the total number of seats in the institutes of higher learning would not have been taken in absence of any protests. Yes, the quality of education will suffer for some years, in all likelihood, as it is almost an impossible task to appoint highly qualified faculty in a short time. The demand for phased implementation of quotas, so that at no point in time are the general category seats reduced, is still to be granted by the government. But in the long run, the much needed increase in infrastructure will be a positive effect. If the successive governments are able to create 6 new AIIMS quality institutes and the new IIM and IIT level institutes even in the next 10 years, it would be a great accomplishment and would take the country a long way. I would be utterly naive and hopelessly optimistic if I were to assume that the government has the will to do all it is promising. Therefore, the 'Youth for Equality' and others have to keep the pressure on and not let the government breathe easy. This opportunity to do something with our system, created by the foolhardiness of one minister, should not be limited in its scope to one issue. Let the movement be “Youth for Equality and Development”. However, in all this the most important issue that the agitating students have missed is the issue of primary education and equal opportunities for all classes. I strongly believe that the charter of demands should have included a plan of action from the government on how it proposes to give equal opportunities to backward classes. Reservations in institutes of higher education are not means of providing equal opportunity but are what should be the result of equal opportunity to all. There is a much vaunted Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan whose efficacy is highly debatable. A mechanism is urgently needed for ensuring that it actually serves some purpose other than feeding school-age children during their lunch break from cattle grazing, for example. A bi-annual evaluation of progress of students in such programs may be an idea to be explored. The demand of forming a technical committee to look into alternatives to reservation policy comes close to it but it gives the impression to quota supporters that the primary goal of such a demand is to get rid of reservations. Instead, I feel the agitating students should directly take up the cause of backward classes and demand that it be addressed in the right way and not by the sop of reservation. This sort of demand would have served two purposes. One, if accepted, it would have hit at the basis of the problem and ensured real social leveling so that, say after a decade or two, there would be no more need for reservations or other forms of affirmative actions anywhere. Two, it would have preempted the portrayal of middle class as 'elitist' and 'anti-affirmative' action by proponents of quota policy. For these two reasons, I think that the agitators have been a little short-sighted in their demands. It is not too late though. Even if the quotas are not rolled back, or phased in, this goal of basic primary education for all disadvantaged groups is too important to be ignored. Let us take up the cause even if it is for the selfish reason that any government 10 years on can not justify increasing reservations or, more realistically, implementing reservation in the private sector.

Viewpoints

2007-02-11T19:04:00.000-08:00

I remember this chapter on Sant Kavi Tiruvalluvar from my Hindi textbook in school. He was apparently some great sage from the southern India. The story was that the sage's wife of more than 20 years (or was it 30?) had, on his instructions, always served a bowl of water and a needle along with all his meals ever since they got married. One day she asks him why he keeps the bowl of water and the needle by his side, since she'd never seen him use these. The sage told her in reply that in case any grain of rice fell on the ground he'd want to pick it up with a needle and wash it in the bowl of water before eating it. Since his wife was so meticulous in serving the food, not even a single grain had fallen off the plate in so many years. The moral, at least of that part of the story, was one shouldn't waste any food. But when I think of that story, the most striking thing to me is that how could she (the sage's wife) have gone about the same task for all those 20 (?) years, without actually knowing the real reason behind it or the purpose it served. Doesn't it make one wonder what kind of interaction the couple had usually? I mean why she couldn’t ask what a bowl of water and a needle were for the first time the sage requested her for the same.