tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68975712024-03-07T01:04:25.933-08:00Idle Ruminations of an Incurable FreakRandom Thoughts on Life, Society, India, Politics, Cricket, Books or whatever that is worth thinking about at that specific moment. Although this is just a monologue, anyone's welcome to convert that into a dialogue -- at their own peril.asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1159695237254308822006-10-01T02:31:00.000-07:002006-10-01T02:33:57.266-07:00Ummmm. Moved again!Well LJ was better than blogger but wordpress seems like the best free blogging service for my requirements. So I've moved there for good. <br /><br /><a href="http://asuph.wordpress.com">http://asuph.wordpress.com</a><br /><br />The rest -- the name, the tone, the shallow intellectualism -- all's the same. Please visit me there. Oh, yeah, the template's mucho bettero. And due to worpress's import facility, ALL my previous blogs (well almost) are there.<br /><br />cheers,<br />asuph.asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1125508600327871292005-08-31T09:44:00.000-07:002006-10-01T02:38:59.283-07:00We're movingAlmost.<br />Blogger is kinda painful, so experimenting with LJ for now.<br /><br />Those who are still following this feed for they're lazy enough not to, you can track my latest posts at:<br /><br /><font size=+3><a href="http://asuph.wordpress.com">A Fine Imbalance</a></font><br /><br />Thanks for being lazy :)<br /><br />asuph.asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1110963211506956902005-03-16T00:35:00.000-08:002005-03-16T00:53:31.513-08:00Scattered Thoughts on International Women's DayOnce you get used to your own cynicism, like I am, you tend to dismiss offhand things without really looking at their value. It's not for no reason that Oscar Wilde said <i>Cynic is a person who knows price of everything and the value of nothing!</i>. In the present times when everything from Sania Mirza (with all due respect to her temperament and talent) to Indian Idols (Ditto) is hyped, it's hard not to be cynical. In times when there is one or the other day always working overtime for the Hallmarks and the Archies, it's hard not to be cynical about the xyz day. And yet, the extreme cynic that I am, I think if world needs a day, it's a Women's Day. No, it's not a conversion of a cynic ;-).<br /><br />In a TV-Debate on a Marathi channel centered on the International Women's Day, the only Male panelist who was fighting the <i>lost cause</i> of the patriarchal system, was arguing for Stree-Shakti (Women's Empowerment) as opposed to Stree-Mukti (Women's Liberation). His point was that women's liberation is unnecessary and indeed a wrong approach. He hinted at Vinoba Bhave's ideas of Women's Shakti, and yet, when asked how would someone who is not free realize the power, he was speechless. <br />I said fighting for patriarchal system is a lost cause, not because patriarchy is dead. Anything but the opposite (however my secondary point is lurking right here, to be addressed later). What's changed in the urban intellectual context, is that the patriarchy has gone underground. It knows there is no point to debate -- after all they hold the card yet. In public discourse, fighting for patriarchy is as prudent as fighting for Holocaust denial in America! But that doesn't mean that you need to change your houses -- after all what has intellectual stands have got to do with day to day living?<br /><br />Ah, back to the question, why do I think the world needs Women's day? Quite simply because tokenism has its own value! The same TV-channels that make you wanna puke for the matter of fact portrayal of the great Indian patriarchy, even if for the sake of tokenism open up the debates on the man-woman equation. And those same couch potatoes who swallow the former get to hear the voices from the other side -- a much vilified, much sidelined, and much mis-represented class of women -- to the extent that it has become an oxymoron: the independent women. <br /><br />Why I say patriarchy still holds all the cards, is that it leaves independent men to be pretty much alone. So it's okay if a man doesn't want to meet his inlaws for it bores him, being asocial, being whimsical, being arrogant. The patriarchy isn't really threatened by that species -- it's immune to it. But the same deviations in a women, and the hell lets loose, even in urban educated families who pride upon their modernity -- of clothes, of drinks and all the likes. It's always the independent minded woman who is blamed for breaking the house -- as if her husband is just a stooge. He even earns the sympathy of the system for the way the woman has cast a spell on him. It's always the independent thinking woman who is held responsible for the failures of <i>her</i> kid. It always the independent thinking woman who is held responsible for the rising divorces. The patriarchy goes on, never stopping for a moment to introspect. <br /><br />And now, we have gone to the next stage -- already there is <i>too much</i> freedom, and all talk about feminism is irrelevant, a game invented by some lunatics who are misandros, if there is such a word! For our society has changed, is what I hear. Girls these days get the equal (and even more equal) treatment in the house. There are stories of husbands who cook and clean and share the burden told with oozing admiration for those men. They are the darlings of the patriarchy, for they prove their point -- of how fair the world is to women already! And yet, one routinely hears stories of weddings paid for by the bride, of working women getting up at 5 AM to prepare lunch/breakfast for the hubby, who doesn't believe making a cup of tea is really his cup of tea, of girls being paid less because they anyway don't need that money -- their husbands being paid well. There are countless stories in the same urban educated class, in our vicinities, we don't even have to go to the slums. <br /><br />Yes we need the stories of the helping husbands too, but what about the stories of their wives who are taking the equal share? Are they suddenly out of fashion because they aren't <i>empathisable material</i> anymore? For it's these woman who are the silent crusaders of the band of feminism that's living what they preach -- they have fought with the patriarchy, taken the bad-mouthing like a man (to use an extremely un-appropriate phrase), asserted their rights, and above all shown a tenacity that would make anyone proud! Well almost anyone, for no one seems to be proud of them. If it takes a tokenism, an International Women's Day, for me to say it, so be it, but I'm proud of you girls. I am married to one such girl, and to whom I want to dedicate this blog! Saya, I'm proud of you!<br /><br />And here is my one request to the womenfolk out there. The patriarchy is not about male domination -- it's about keeping the system rolling. For the MIL and SILs are as much a part of the patriarchy as are the FIL and BIL, albeit more so. So please take the International Women's Day seriously and if you care about Women's liberation or empowerment, start with your home. Make sure you are not part of the patriarchy. If all of you do that, the patriarchy will collapse like a piece of cards. Yes, some of us would help you out in that, but then how many of you can you really expect to help you? And the system wins because people given in a tad too easily. Don't!asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1108533958112111132005-02-15T21:48:00.000-08:002005-02-15T22:05:58.116-08:00Of Gifts and V-DayWhat do pseudo-intellectuals do on the Valentines Day? They muse. Or they think they muse. Whatever. So here is my V-Day muse or rambling.<br /><br />V-Days are linked so closely to gifts, and I'm a bad gift person. I mean I'm <i>really</i> bad. No, I'm <i>really really</i> bad. My theory of gifting is derived from Jesus Christ -- <i>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you</i>. Problem is, when I think of the gifts that I'd like to receive from people, the list is short. Tiny almost. Well it can be written in two words - Books and Music. Not a very helpful rule, I'd say -- so what if it's golden? To be honest, there are more things that I'd like to receive as gifts from people -- like a state of the art laptop, a sedan class car, a Boss home theater, so on and so forth. But I don't add them to the list, just so that I'm not obliged to think of them as alternatives (still people are welcome to go ahead and gift them to me)! That brings us back to the gift problem.<br /><br />Anyway, all that changed with the entry of Sayali. She is a gift person. I remember just before our first V-day, she handed me a polythene bag that I was to forward to some friend of hers in Pune. I hate forwarding stuff to people I don't know. But then, I was already feeling guilty that I couldn't spend V-Day with her (yeah, yeah, we all know it's commercial crap and all that, but try telling that as an excuse ;-)). So I mutely carried it back home, wondering which new friend this was that I had never heard about! On the V-Day, she tells me it's a gift for me. That was just the beginning though. It's after we got married that I realized that she just has amazing talent for gifts. So these days, I get a share of "oh! we were thinking of buying this for so long!", "oh, this is so cute", "oh! chooooooo chweeeeeeeeeeet", when we hand over gifts to people. I've completely outsourced the gifting department, disowning my gift-philosophy. Who needs theory when he can use the master's services for free? Well the last is not exactly true (for the master doesn't just tell what to gift, but also when -- half of which I'd have forgotten otherwise), but I'm not complaining.asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1107955216162815312005-02-09T05:00:00.000-08:002005-02-09T05:20:16.163-08:00India changes every minuteOne minute you're sitting in an air-conditioned office, in a plush building, or moving through the maze of cubicles smiling that professional smile at people you know little about. Impersonal, professional, India -- plush, efficient, and spotlessly clean.
<br />
<br />Then you step out. There is a company meeting in a five star hotel, and company has arranged a bus for taking all of you there. You step on the bus, to the sounds of "Pardesi pardesi jana nahi", on a music system that's surely not made with the concept of fidelity on mind. The loud shrinking sounds, and the dust, and the heat and the pollution accompanies you to the destination. The driver and the cleaner speaking some dialect of Hindi, laughing that all too real laughter.
<br />
<br />You're back into a epitome of the urban India -- the snobbish high places. Spotlessly clean, slow elevator music in the background, air fresheners the body sprays intermingling, the cool air wants you to pull a sweater on. An utterly impersonal world, where every attendant keeps calling you sir for no reason.
<br />
<br />Another day, you're sitting in a <i>tapari</i>, with oily pakodas and hot ginger tea in almost dirty glasses. The weary indifference on the face of the chaiwallah breaks down when you tell him it was an excellent tea. He never expected to hear that from you. He's unabashedly happy as he returns you back the exact change. Another ghastly song is playing on the old radio, but somehow that doesn't bother you.
<br />
<br />India changes every minute. What does it mean to love or hate India?asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1103540359097918272004-12-20T02:43:00.000-08:002004-12-20T02:59:19.096-08:00Out Of RangeOkay, so I'm not alone! Robert J. Samuelson writes this piece: <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5707878/site/newsweek/">A Cell Phone? Never for Me</a>, in which he says, <i>Someday soon, I may be the last man in America without a cell phone.</i> Next time someone asks me why I haven't bought a cell phone yet, I will thank you Mr. Samuelson, cos I want to be the last man in the world to own one! Maybe we'll compete on that.<blockquote>I'm a dropout and aim to stay that way. I admit this will be increasingly difficult, because cell phones are now passing a historic milestone. As with other triumphs of the mass market, they've reached a point when people forget what it was like before they existed. No one remembers life before cars, TVs, air conditioners, jets, credit cards, microwave ovens and ATM cards. So, too, now with cell phones. Anyone without one will soon be classified as a crank or member of the (deep) underclass.</blockquote> Back in India, I think we're already there. People look at you quizzically if you don't have a cell phone. And then there is a breed of zealous cell phone proselytizers who would chip in with, "<i>See, if you had a cell phone today, this wouldn't have happened</i>". Most of the times, they don't want to see, that I didn't particularly seem to have minded that <i>this</i> not happening! Myopia I tell you. Cellular Myopia. Grow up guys, there is a world beyond the range of any cell tower. As yet ... And I don't particularly mind that either.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1102414770847374042004-12-07T02:18:00.000-08:002004-12-07T02:19:30.846-08:00Remember Me?That has to be <i>the</i> questions that I dread most: "Remember me?".
<br />
<br />People, I've learned over the years, have amazing memories. Especially people from your hometowns! More so, if your hometown is same as mine. I come from ***, a once quite little town of Maharashtra. Now, I'm no genius. You know it, and I know it. I have a suspicion even guys back there know it too. I mean, it's not like I struck an evolutionary lottery -- and the whole of my school would know me because of my brilliant curricular and extra-curricular record (or just great looks :D). Nothing of that sort. I was never a topper, and more never an extra-curricular kinda guy, unless you count reading books -- but you don't get popular by reading books! How I wish one could, tho.
<br />
<br />In fact, when it comes to remembering faces, I'm probably worse to none. And when it comes to remembering names, I'm sure I'm worse to none. So, even an elementary knowledge of probability (independent events and all that) would tell you, that remembering faces AND names together is squarely difficult for me. People, on the other hand -- yes those same ones from my hometown -- have no problems with it at all!
<br />
<br />Like when I was still doing my post-grad in Mumbai, I was boarding on a local from Dadar, when a guy jumped in. "you're from ***, right?", "yes", I nod, trying to recollect who this could be. "from *** school, right?". Another nod, and more frantic attempts at remembering something about the guy, "you were in X division, right?". Another helpless nod and "yes", but still no sign of any recollection. In fact, I had given up completely by then.
<br />
<br />"We beat you in <i>Kabaddi</i> game in eight's standard".
<br />
<br /> I swear I'm not making this up. At that point, I went "wow". I mean, yes Kabaddi is probably the only game in which India wins consistently and all that, but with all due respect to the <i>native</i> games and all, Kabaddi is the last thing that generates passion when you're back in school -- cricket? sure; football? maybe yes; but Kabaddi? The only reason why I was playing Kabaddi was that that's the only team I could possibly make into (that too -- the class team!), owing to the same lack of glamor of the game. And probably the fact that, that was the only field game where you could beat people stronger than you. With my tiny frame, guys would think that I'd not have a good grip and come closer, making my job that much more easy. In field games like football, you could never take chances with bigger guys (I have learnt it the hard way!). Kabaddi is different. Once you get hold of someone's leg, there is generally help around.
<br />
<br />But then I digress. Not that I mind doing it. Holden Caulfield for one would be with me. At times, digression is good, he would say. <i>Like when I do it, for instance</i>. But at times it's good to get back to the point too. The point, then was Kabaddi. Or rather insignificant a Kabaddi match between Division X and Division Y (I incidentally never asked him which division he was in), in rather insignificant a school, in rather insignificant a town... Still, after ten or so years, this guy remembers this match, the result of the match. And I cannot even recall where the hell had I seen him before (or if I had seen him before at all). Wow!
<br />
<br />"Remember me"? That's a million dollar question if there was one. Like the other day when I was walking with my wife when someone called my name.
<br />
<br />"How are you?", he's all excited that he ran into me (<i>yes, some people do get excited after running into me, too. Especially, if it's been years!</i>)
<br />
<br />"I'm fine, how are <i>you</i>", there is no way I'm going to remember his name in time.
<br />
<br />"Oh, I'm fine. I though you won't recognize me"
<br />
<br />"Come on! How can I forget you!" (<i>who the hell is he?</i>)
<br />
<br />There is no way I'm going to introduce my wife to him. What do I tell her -- this is someone from my school or college probably? One of my friends is good at such one sided introductions. I avoid them altogether.
<br />
<br />How do people remember my face? Do I look like a cartoon? Maybe I do. But so do some of these people. And I don't remember <i>them</i>. I don't remember even having seen them!
<br />
<br />The next time someone asks that question, I swear I'm going to say "No, who <i>are</i> you?"! I don't care what I do to their self-esteem. It's time they learnt that the more forgettable you are, the better. And if possible, could you please forget me too in return? At least I would be spared the embarrassment!
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1101211213889950622004-11-23T02:35:00.000-08:002004-11-23T04:00:13.890-08:00The Minority Communalism?In <a href="http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20041115&fname=Sikh+%28F%29&sid=1">Oh, That Other Hindu Riot Of Passage</a>, Khushwant Singh recounts the horrors of the 1984 anti-sikh riots. Unfortunately, the bitterness has gotten the better of him, for he argues: <blockquote>Four years later, Mrs Gandhi's assassins Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh paid the penalty for their crime by being hanged to death in Tihar jail.
<br />
<br />Twenty years later, the killers of 10,000 Sikhs remain unpunished. The conclusion is clear: in secular India there is one law for the Hindu majority, another for Muslims, Christians and Sikhs who are in minority</blockquote>There is one gross <i>non-sequitur</i> here. For he is comparing apples with oranges. Ordinary Hindu majority has to deal with the same system of justice and its inadequacies that ordinary sikhs or Muslims have to deal with, and Khushwant Singh is doing a great disservice to the cause of justice for ordinary citizens in this country by communalising this issue. Okay, the hurt explains part of it, but Khushwant Singh is much too <i>bujurg</i> to let it blind his perceptions.
<br />
<br />I'm not denying Hindu rioting -- quite the opposite. Neither do I want to justify it. Let us be clear about that, because it's easy to pick up things out of context and shoot the messenger. But the point is, in India, victims of <i>any</i> riots do not get justice. It's as much true about the Muslims in Gujarat, as it is true about Brahmins in Maharashthra (post Gandhi assassination), ... And not only riots, Kashmiri pandits got a raw a deal in the independent India; so have dalits and tribals (mostly Hindu) in many parts of the country, and the <i>denotified</i> (as if that's not an insult enough) tribes (again Hindu) in the supposedly modern India... Ask a common man about justice in India and he will ask you back what the hell do you mean? Where does one buy it?
<br />
<br />If Khushwant Singh has problems with the justice system that we have in place, I'm with him. But excuse me, sir, if you want to paint the issue with a blatently communal brush. For instance, a large part of victims of the terrorism in Punjab were sikhs too. Have they got justice in the sikh land? India has lots of follies, we don't need to invent more. How about building some bridges for god's sake?
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1098698977482063242004-10-24T21:52:00.000-07:002004-10-25T03:19:42.710-07:00Who's Indian?Madhu Menon (aka Madman)'s blog, <a href="http://www.madmanweb.com/archives/0410the_meaning_of_being_an_indian.html">The meaning of being an Indian</a>, raises an interesting point: <blockquote>And what if you don't find too much in common with many people in your country? I ask because for many years, I have felt a "cultural mismatch" between me and the country I live in. I could not identify with many things that form our "culture"</blockquote>But isn't it true about <i>any</i> culture? What use is a culture without misfits? If everybody fits in, we have a giant monolith -- something that even the self-declared guardians of culture wouldn't have bargained for.
<br />
<br />To a large extent, I share Madhu's sense of being a misfit myself, and I'm sure many do. However, Madhu goes ahead and asks : <blockquote>How, then, can I strongly identify with this country? Is there any "Indian" left in me?</blockquote>That got me thinking. For all my disconnect with the mass culture of India, it never occurred to me to ask this question of myself. That's not same as being able to answer the question at all. What identity do misfits have anyway -- with respect to a culture? I think the answer lies in the way one looks at the very idea of culture.
<br />
<br />What, then, <i>is</i> a culture? Is it just a sum of static beliefs and practices that a community (country is just a geo-political community) shares? If culture were just that, then ironically, there would be <i>no</i> culture! For every belief, every ritual that we identify with culture today was a break-away phenomenon yesterday. In Lila, Robert Pirsig talks about <i>static</i> and <i>dynamic</i> patterns of values. What Madhu seems to be concentrating on, as culture, is the static patterns of values -- something which is pretty integral to a culture, as that is how it sustains itself. But <i>more</i> vital, are the dynamic patterns of values, that at the point of their arrival would always be contrary to the static patterns, and yet in a generations or two would be subsumed into the collection of static patterns -- something we identify with as culture.
<br />
<br />Besides, with culture as diverse as Indian (or for that matter European) culture, the mainstream or mass culture is just one (even if significant by definition) stream. The custodians of the mainstream culture might want to (and indeed do) insist that <i>that</i> is the Indian culture, but it doesn't at all change the reality of the complex interplay of streams. So, Atheism is one such stream that has both a long history and a strong presence in the Indian culture. Likewise, many great saints of this land have been individualistic in a certain sense. Many reformists have either rejected or reinvented rituals. And so on.
<br />
<br />Of course, I'm avoiding the question -- who then is an Indian? Well, my answer, however circular it might sound, is <i>anyone who identifies with Indian culture</i>. Mainstream or fringe don't really matter. For those are very temporal tags. And there are just innumerable choices to pick from for identifying with -- the pop-culture of Bollywood or the Ekta Kapoors, or the eternal spirituality or the plethora of rituals, or the thousand ideas of India. Besides, it's not even mandatory to be <i>exclusively</i> Indian. asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1098357689106412942004-10-21T02:18:00.000-07:002004-10-21T06:18:57.873-07:00Four Cheers For The ColonializedIn <a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i35/35b00701.htm">Two Cheers For Colonialism</a>, <a href="http://www.dineshdsouza.com/">Dinesh D'souza</a>, the American author (I shudder to say, of Indian origin) argues the case for colonialism, dismissing post-colonial studies, and aquitting colonialism (as unintentional gift by the colonial masters), all in on breath. I must say, I admire his courage, his passion, and his sheer (selective) honesty -- however misplaced they all might be.
<br />
<br />Why did he choose to defend the colonial case, is anybody's guess -- probably he was hurt that his <i>cherished</i> western <i>civilization</i> is under attack from the rest of the wretched third-world -- which in the absence of any real bargaining power is maligning the west. For someone who was raised (I presume) on the romances of Western civilization, it's understandable that his blood boils by the accusations that all those post-colonial and subaltern scholars are hurling at the greatest example of the western civilization. We, from the wretched thirld world, must understand this behaviour of those lucky ones who never had an umelical chord connecting them with these wretched (even though much improved now, post the colonial rules -- the longer, the better) regions of earth. So, my third-<strike>rate</strike>worldly friends, you must be sympathetic to him. And please don't call him those old-fashioned names like a <i>traitor</i> or <i>gaddar</i>. You see, he's being more than loyal to <i>his country</i> and <i>his culture</i>. So let's not be emotional, and let's try to adhere to the modernity -- let's be logical.
<br />
<br />For instance, he says: <blockquote>The <b>assault</b> against colonialism and its legacy has many dimensions, but at its core it is a <b>theory of oppression</b> that relies on three premises: First, colonialism and imperialism are distinctively Western evils that were inflicted on the non-Western world. Second, as a consequence of colonialism, the West became rich and the colonies became impoverished; in short, the West succeeded at the expense of the colonies. Third, the descendants of colonialism are worse off than they would be had colonialism never occurred.</blockquote> Of course, you and me won't use the world <i>assault</i> for the post-colonial reactions! But that's being emotional. From a perspective of global citizen, it's an assualt, mind you. Also, no one is seriously arguing that colonialism is <i>essentially</i> a western concept, but that's okay again. If you apply a little bit of deconstructionism (a western, and global, technique), you'd see that the fact that DD picks up as an important premise shows that in his worldview, <i>West</i> has to be at the center of the things. It's very very natural, I tell you. So if no one is seriously saying that colonialism is a distinctly western evil, you gotta assume that that's what they are doing. After all, how could anyone think that west is <i>not</i> at the center of something? So we'll let that pass. <blockquote>By suggesting that the West became dominant because it is oppressive, they provide an explanation for Western global dominance without encouraging white racial arrogance. They relieve the third world of blame for its wretchedness.</blockquote> Well, as a representatives of those wrethed third-worlds, sir, I accept that the blame is totally ours. We let others rule us, we fought among ourselves, and generally never realized that you gotta learn from your history. Hell, most of us don't realized even today that they gotta learn from their history! So on that point, I'm with you, sir. <blockquote>I was raised to believe in such things (the three premises, I presume -- e.d), and among most third-world intellectuals they are articles of faith. The only problem is that they are not true.</blockquote> And here, the smart ones can go home. For the dummies, there are explanations coming. <blockquote><b>Colonialism has gotten a bad name in recent decades</b></blockquote> LOL! I'm deeply sorry sir. Colonialism shouldn't have got a bad name. My wretched brothers don't understand. <blockquote>Anticolonialism was one of the dominant political currents of the 20th century, as dozens of European colonies in Asia and Africa became free. Today we are still living with the aftermath of colonialism. Apologists for terrorism, including Osama bin Laden, argue that terrorist acts are an understandable attempt on the part of subjugated non-Western peoples to lash out against their longtime Western oppressors. Activists at last year's World Conference on Racism, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have called on the West to pay reparations for slavery and colonialism to minorities and natives of the third world.</blockquote> Again sir, I genuinely regret the misunderstanding of my fellow third-<strike>raters</strike>worlders. If I were at that conference, sir, I'd have ulta (a third-world-word for reverse) asked the third-worlders to give some of their GDP to the west for all the unintended gifts that they gave us, in their stay here. I mean, gift is a gift is a gift! Intention notwithstanding. I've just one complaint, sir, did you have to bring in OBL in this? I mean, your own western theories would postulate that this might amount to guilt-by-association, a very unhealthy thing to do, by civilized people. But then I forget, you have the wretched blood running in your veins! Damn, how I wish you could have got rid of that, and become an exemplary modern citizen. But I'll let that pass too. <blockquote>These justifications of violence, and calls for monetary compensation, rely on a large body of scholarship that has been produced in the Western academy. </blockquote> Sir, again, me thinks, you're doing that same guilt-by-association thingy. I advise you to act more civilized/westernized sir. You're showing your origins by behaving like that! <blockquote>The West did not become rich and powerful through colonial oppression. Moreover, the West could not have reached its current stage of wealth and influence by stealing from other cultures, for the simple reason that there wasn't very much to take.</blockquote> Right! Like, India's 20% share of the world trade -- that must be based on selling the philosophy of <i>maya</i>. I mean, what else was there in India pre-british? Again, friends you should not be overly critical of Mr. DD. He was never taught the history of the wretched third-world and the colonies. Hell, most of us were never taught it either, living in the same wretched thirld-world. <blockquote>"Oh yes there was," the retort often comes. "The Europeans stole the raw material to build their civilization. They took rubber from Malaya, cocoa from West Africa, and tea from India." But as the economic historian P.T. Bauer points out, before British rule, there were no rubber trees in Malaya, no cocoa trees in West Africa, no tea in India. </blockquote> Like, I said, pure <i>maya</i>. After all, (more later) people who never knew how to distinguish between science and cow, cannot possibly have much wealth! That talk about strong textile industry, and all must be a pure bull! (What else do you expect from cow-worshippers?) <blockquote>The reason the West became so affluent and dominant in the modern era is that it <b>invented</b> three institutions: science, democracy, and capitalism. All those institutions are based on universal impulses and aspirations, but those aspirations were given a unique expression in Western civilization.</blockquote> Like the trade-protectionism, like high-taxes on manufactured goods from colonies, like trasfer of wealth (the land-tax), like breakdown of traditional schooling system, like out-licenecing the native enterpreuners.... You see, in it's initial stages, democray and capitalism for a few has to come at the expense of foreign rule and import barriers for outsiders. It's a tricky thing, democracy. You want buffers, you know! What if it fails? The west was responsible for the experiment! And you need civilized people for democracy. So naturally, the thirld-world had to be excluded. Capitalism also is <i>sooo</i> fragile, that it needs import protection. I mean, you don't just let <i>outsiders</i>, and inferior, wretched ones at that, to do free trade <i>inside</i> your country! Not to mention the very civilized <i>divide and rule</i> tactics. Very very civilized look away for a while while famines are happening (because of your policies). You see, there is a science of ruling! And who else could have invented that? <blockquote>Now we can understand better why the West was able, between the 16th and 19th centuries, to subdue the rest of the world and bend it to its will. Indian elephants and Zulu spears were no match for British rifles and cannonballs.</blockquote> Righto! Now we know! Dummies, even you can go home now. Only metally challenged should stay. <blockquote>Colonialism and imperialism are not the cause of the West's success; they are the result of that success. </blockquote> I'm staying sir, I'm quite stupid. But can I just ask one question, I mean such a civilized bunch this, those who <i>invented</i> institutions like Democracy and all (never heard of before anywhere in the world!), why couldn't they ummmm control their urges? You know, not of <i>that</i> kind... <blockquote>Colonial possessions added to the prestige, and to a much lesser degree the wealth, of Europe.</blockquote> Right. If you say so, sir! <blockquote><b>The descendants of colonialism are better off than they would be if colonialism had never happened:</b> I would like to illustrate this point through a personal example. While I was a young boy, growing up in India, I noticed that my grandfather, who had lived under British colonialism, was instinctively and habitually antiwhite... I realized that I did not share his antiwhite animus. That puzzled me: Why did he and I feel so differently? ... Only years later, after a great deal of reflection and a fair amount of study, did the answer finally hit me. The reason for our difference of perception was that colonialism had been pretty bad for him, but pretty good for me. Another way to put it was that colonialism had injured those who lived under it, but paradoxically it proved beneficial to their descendants.</blockquote> But why was it bad for him? After all, wasn't India wretched even before Brits came? I mean, why wasn't he greatful to the Brits for all those railways and buildings and all? I see, sir, your grandfather didn't have your <i>balanced</i> perspective. Possibly because he never got good western (I know it's redundancy, but my fellow-countrymen wouldn't know, you know) education sir? And why are you suddenly saying it injured people who lived under it? Didn't they get the benefits too? Those ungreatful swines? I mean, here they were living in absolute pathetic state, there comes the white man and gives them trains, and what not, and education (unheard of before that, I'm sure). And still they crib! It must be in their blood... <blockquote> Much as it chagrins me to admit it -- and much as it will outrage many third-world intellectuals for me to say it -- my life would have been much worse had the British never ruled India.</blockquote> Ignore them sir. As it is, third-world intellectuals is an oxymoron. You're talking about non-existing people. The third-world idiots like me accept your insigt. Of course, your life is better off. One stupid stupid question -- is that why you're defending colonialism? <blockquote>I am a writer, and I write in English. My ability to do this, and to reach a broad market, is entirely thanks to the British. </blockquote> You mean, the British taught you to write, wow! They've done a great job! <blockquote>My understanding of technology, which allows me, like so many Indians, to function successfully in the modern world, was largely the product of a Western education that came to India as a result of the British. So also my beliefs in freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity -- they are all the products of Western civilization.</blockquote> Again, a stupid stupid question sir. How much money do you get for this? <blockquote>I am not suggesting that it was the intention of the colonialists to give all those wonderful gifts to the Indians.</blockquote> Not too much, I see. <blockquote>Then they realized that they needed courts of law to adjudicate disputes that went beyond local systems of dispensing justice. And so the British legal system was introduced, with all its procedural novelties, like "innocent until proven guilty." The British also had to educate the Indians, in order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire. Thus Indian children were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes, and Locke. In that way the Indians began to encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture: "liberty," "sovereignty," "rights," and so on.</blockquote> One more stupid stupid question sir -- why did civil servents need to know Shakespeare? <blockquote>But my broader point is that the champions of Indian independence acquired the principles, the language, and even the strategies of liberation from the civilization of their oppressors.</blockquote> Like Ahimsa? Sir? I always had a doubt! I mean, why else would a freedom fighter say don't kill the opressors? <blockquote>It is doubtful that non-Western countries would have acquired those good things by themselves. It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee -- the custom of tossing widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own.</blockquote>Of course not sir! Only civilized people like the Brits could <i>on their own</i> outlaw practices like witch-burning. And who else could have branded those wretched tribes as criminal tribes? I mean, you need absolute faith in oneself to brand tribes of people as criminal. <blockquote>None of this is to say that colonialism by itself was a good thing, only that bad institutions sometimes produce good results. Colonialism, I freely acknowledge, was a harsh regime for those who lived under it. My grandfather would have a hard time giving even one cheer for colonialism. As for me, I cannot manage three, but I am quite willing to grant two. So here they are: two cheers for colonialism!</blockquote> I wish you had read Ramayana, a third-<strike>rate</strike>world epic. In that, there is this crooked character called Valya KoLi -- he used to loot and kill people. Not very good thing, I know. But it produced good results for his family! If it weren't for him, his family would never have afforded the kind of living they could. Will you join me when I grant two cheers to Valya? I'd have said three but he later abondoned this route and made his family suffer, while he sat and wrote the stupid epic called Ramayana, which kept Indians backword for the next thousands of years!. Thank god, your grandmother never told you <i>that</i> story, Sir.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1098106070683438522004-10-18T05:59:00.000-07:002004-10-18T22:45:43.686-07:00Art and Disruptive GeniusIn <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?m=200409#157">Deadly Genius and the Back-To-Zero Problem</a>, ESR (Eric S. Raymond -- the Open Source Guru, for the non-techies) puts forward an interesting hypothesis about demise of some art forms. Now, one can argue wether some of the art forms that he uses for illlustrating his point are actually dead. But that doesn't take away anything from his theory.
<br />
<br />According to ESR, one of the important factors in the demise of/destruction of art form is <i>deadly genius</i>, as he calls it. <blockquote>A deadly genius is a talent so impressive that he can break and remake all the rules of the form, and seduce others into trying to emulate his disruptive brilliance — even when those followers lack the raw ability or grounding to make art in the new idiom the the genius has defined.</blockquote> This, essentially kills the art form, as the hoards that go after the genius (obviously) don't have his/her genius, but imitate anyway -- with disasterous results. In other words, they end up being - <i>na ghar ka na ghat ka</i>, contributing in the demise of the art form as well.
<br />
<br />Art, is more or less dependent on a degree of <i>continuity</i>, as the bulk of population (which supports art in one way or another) is rather conservative with respect to appreciating art. This is more than evident in the history. ESR stresses on this point: <blockquote>Artistic tradition can be limiting sometimes, but it has one thing going for it — it is the result of selection for pleasing an audience. Thus, artists of moderate talent can imitate it and produce something that the eye, ear, heart and mind will experience with pleasure. Most artists are at best of moderate talent; thus, this kind of imitation is how art forms survive and keep an audience.</blockquote> ESR observes that in the early twentieth centuary, the <i>deadly genius</i> phenomenon became really prominent. Why, he asks, and again postulates that it might have to do with the end of traditional patronage system for art, which was one of the major factors that worked for art establishment.<blockquote>Wealthy aristocratic patrons, had, in general, little use for disruptive brilliance — what they wanted from artists was impressive display objects, status symbols that had to be comprehensible to the patron's peers. Thus, artists learned to stay more or less within traditional forms or starve. Evolution happened, but it was relatively gradual and unsconscious. Geniuses were not permitted to become deadly.... [But in] the new environment, artistic tradition lost much of its normative force. "Back to zero!" was the slogan; forget everything so you can invent anything. And when the next wave of deadly geniuses hit, there was nothing to moderate them any more.</blockquote> However, there is one interesting problem with this theory: the more deadly the genius is, the more pattern-breaking his/her art is likely to be. So in the absence of patronage, there should be <i>more</i> pressure on the artist to conform. For once you break normative matrix, you're essentially an outsider -- and this is not just true for art, although it is more obvious in artistic realms. Naturally it takes years before revolutionary art is appreciated. So <ul><li>What prompts the deadly genius to throw away the rules -- and what stopped them from doing that in the patronage system?</li><li>What prompts the less-endowed to follow the struggling geniuses?</li></ul> The questions (and I myself see an answer to the first one: that old Patronage system was more limiting than a societal patronage -- as the latter is more decentralized) become more relevant in the wake of ESR's prediction that: <blockquote>It is unlikely that anything quite like the Modernist disruption will ever happen again, if only because we've been there and done that now. </blockquote>I'm no art expert, but I think this is a little-to-early to predict anything like that, however sound the hypothesis may look. Mainly because, a deadly-genius does what it does <i>inspite</i> of the surroundings, not <i>because</i> of them. So certain social catalysts can accelerate or slow down the process but it's presumptuous to say that only one set of social conditions could bring around such a revolution/disruption (whatever way you look at it). One thing however cannot be contested: <blockquote>But as we try to heal all the fractures it produced, this one lesson is worth bearing in mind. Genius can be deadly when it goes where mere talent cannot follow.</blockquote> And it takes a deadly genius himself to come up with that!asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1097737922362809172004-10-14T01:12:00.000-07:002004-10-14T00:20:22.123-07:00The Republic and the Reconstructed GuruIf anyone ever had <i>any</i> doubts about <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/columnists/msid-12070180,auid-4274.cms">Jug Suraiya</a>'s worth, his recent article in Time of India should really settle the doubts. Writing about <b> Jacques Derrida</b>, the <i>father of Deconstructionsist movement</i>, Jug once again exhibits his mastery over language, and above all his unique ability to effortlessly play with the subject in hand. If there is one reason why I still can't part with TOI, it's got to be Jug.
<br />
<br />Undoubtedly, deconstructionism has strong critics, and its relevance/validity as a <i>universally</i> applicable theory has been questioned -- more recently by <a href="http://www.sulekha.com/network/dp.aspx?profileid=Rajiv%20Malhotra">Rajiv Malhotra</a> and others. The point of the article, however , is not deconstructionism per se, neither is it Deridda's life. For instance, <blockquote> Unburdened of individual responsibility, moral conduct -- or its undifferentiated opposite -- becomes a collective rite, a hoisting of flags and a mouthing of mantras. The isolate covenant of conscience turns into a charade of public ceremony, an unveiling of statues ... </blockquote> The irony of an esteemed TOI columnist talking about individual responsibility kind of spoils it -- for people will ask, today or tomorrow, what then is the responsibility of a syndicated columnist? And doesn't the very fact of writing about individual responsibility then become nothing more that a symbolic flag-hoisting and mouthing of mantras? But that apart, it's a succinct portrayal of our socio-political scene. <blockquote>Each moral inaction has an equal and opposite reaction and it is not surprising that deification -- often of the most implausible or reluctant of idols -- should go hand in hand with that other great national pastime, that of growing cynicism and the vilification of public figures. </blockquote>And<blockquote>Kierkegaard said that to the extent he seized upon a mentor's truth and made it his own, he diminished the importance of the other. In India, we do it the other way round: by magnifying the mentor we absolve ourselves of the responsibility of living up to his teachings.</blockquote>It's probably a universal pastime, in a sense. But in India, it's more prominent -- for it's more than a pastime, and that in a country which can hardly afford pastimes. For every time we wait for another Gandhi/Shivaji/Vivekanand, we waste precious time. And every time we get one, we waste more precious time. In Jug Suraiya's words, <blockquote>The less we appropriate into our own safekeeping what really it is that those whom we burden with the role of being our gurus would have us do, the deeper we genuflect towards him as transcendent messiahs we can safely worship without any anxiety that we should even try and emulate them. </blockquote> All in all, a very readable piece (although a reprint of an old one).
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1097645454662392842004-10-12T21:25:00.000-07:002004-10-12T22:30:54.663-07:00Touch of DivinityWell known Marathi Poet B.B. Borkar probably knew exactly what he had in mind when he wrote the starting couplet of a poem:
<br />
<br /><i>tethe kar maze juLati
<br />divyatvAci jeTha praciti</i>
<br />
<br />Loosely translated, it means -- wherever there is a mark of divinity, I salute humbly. Borkar, of course, had something else on his mind (from what I want to talk about) -- probably those divine souls who spend their lives in oblivion, and yet contribute profoundly to the <i>human cause</i>, with all the inherent ambiguity of that phrase. But the scope of those lines extends far beyond such noble souls.
<br />
<br />For there is something about divinity (not just the religious conception of divinity), which most human being have an innate capacity to experience. The experience itself might well be subjective (isn't experience by it's very definition subjective?) -- but the fact remains, that we have <i>some</i> conception of divinity.
<br />
<br />Robert M. Pirsig, in his book <a href="http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Quality/PirsigZen/index.html"><i>Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</i></a> talks about <i>quality</i> -- and in fact goes ahead and weaves a whole metaphysics around it (which he further espouses in his subsequent book <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0553299611"><i>Lila: An Inquiry into Morals</i></a>). Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) turns over its head the conventional metaphysics of subject/object duality, by putting Quality <i>before</i> subjects/objects. According to MoQ, quality is neither subjective nor objective, but the very genesis of subjects and objects. Not a very intuitive metaphysics, I know.
<br />
<br />On a very orthogonal(?) note, the local myth, and indeed literature, (at least in Marathi speaking regions, however I'm not certain about the scope at all, not being a scholar) talks about a special substance -- called <i>paris</i> in marathi -- which can convert stones into gold, just by touching them. There is also a phrase in marathi, <i>paris sparsha</i> (sparsha is touch, for those who don't know Hindi), that stands for an inside-out change for good, like the stone getting converted to gold due to <i>paris</i>.
<br />
<br />How is all this remotely relevant to divinity? When one is touched by divinity, in whatever way, in whatever degree, one changes -- even if briefly. We've all experienced that, even if momentary, profundity -- when mind is in a state of quasi-equanimity. To use Pirsig's MoQ, mind is in a state very near to <i>quality</i>, and in such state, mind can only produce <i>quality</i>. One can easily substitute quality by divinity. There are few, who are touched by divinity so deeply that they change inside out -- reconstructing the mythical paris. In other words, their minds are always near quality. Borkar probably is talking about such people. Most of us are far far away from there. And yet, we all <i>know</i> those moments when we were brushed (if not touched) by divinity. The question is, do we really cherish it? And if we do why do we let ourselves drift?
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1097227919737193992004-10-08T01:37:00.000-07:002004-10-08T02:31:59.736-07:00Who's Birthday Is It Anyway?And so we've another latest <i>fad</i>. In last couple of weeks, I've got at least thirty-seven <i>requests</i> to add my Birthday to other people's Birthday Calanders. Okay, so I'm exaggerating a little. Okay, a LOT. But suddenly everyone seems to be creating B'day Calanders on <a href="http://www.birthdayalarm.com">BirthdayAlarm.com</a>. Now, I have nothing against this sort of thing -- people want to maintain B'day calanders, good for them! I find it highly commendable. There is a little problem, however. These people want <i>me</i> to enter my birthday there.
<br />
<br />Not that I think it's worth keeping a secret (<i>unless, say, your internet banking password consists of that information. In that case, you're anyway doomed sooner rather than later</i>). However, what kind of pain is it to make entry of <i>your</i> birthday in <i>someone else's</i> B'day Calender, so that s/he doesn't have to take pains of remembering it! I mean, what kind of benevolent universe premise (peace be upon Ayn Rand) do someone who comes up with such an idea rely on? You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours? (aka Symbiotic Benevolence -- something most foolish theories are based on -- like <i>socialism</i>, <i>romantic love</i>, <i>pyramid schemes</i> etc. But then that means, to extract any benefit out of this scheme (unless of course you consider ecards from almost strangers as some kind of benefit) you need to actually <i>create</i> your own B'day Calender somewhere. But then again, what's the real benefit there? You get to <i>send</i> ecards! Fabulous.
<br />
<br />So guys, if you ever feel like creating something like that, please give a second thought to something called human-nature -- which, if you actually sit down to study and understand (<i>and this is especially true about male-nature</i>), is nothing but laziness. Since you were lazy enough to remember/write-down b'days of people who matter to you, the last thing you should expect is that they'll go and actually fill up that information for you. But then, lots of people fall for socialism, romantic love <i>and</i> pyramid schemes. So maybe, you'll be lucky too.asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1097146341622783342004-10-07T03:51:00.000-07:002004-10-07T04:20:52.413-07:00Demystifying Pune (Literally)SSM and other guys here got me started on this! There seems to be a nostalgic image of Pune still lurking in the air (not the Pune air, of course, there is no scope for nostalgia there.. all other possible algia's have taken up whatever place is left by pollutants). It's time to bring in some reality...
<br />
<br />They say once a Punekar, always a Punekar. Probably that explains why Punekars still love this city (?). Celebrated Marathi writer, P.L.Deshpande (known fondly as Pu La), has done a great job of characterizing this city (along with Mumbai and Nagpur), in his masterpiece "Mumbaikar, Punekar kee Naagpurkar". Most Marathi people are familiar with that piece of writing, and it's so good, that it would take either someone of his caliber or a complete idiot to write an addendum to it that's more recent in scope. Since it's hard to find anyone of the former variety, it's obvious that only idiots will take up the honorable job. So here I am.
<br />
<br />There are two kinds of Pune -- one is the Pune of legends, Pune the "sanskritic kendra" (cultural capital) of Maharashtra, Pune the Pensioner's Paradise, Pune with it's cool atmosphere, idyllic life, the oxford of the east, the blah blah blah...
<br /> This Pune is buried deep in the starry eyed memories of those who live outside Pune, or those who have always lived here, and believe what those living outside tell them about Pune. There once was such a Pune, presumably. I am ready to give away that concession to this city(?).
<br /> But there is another kind of Pune, that people who live here (and especially those who have also lived elsewhere at different point of time) have to live with. I am one such part-time Punekar, without any of the "jAjwalya abhimAn" (errr. how does one translate that? strong pride?) about the city(?), who can look at some of it's $hit and say it is indeed $hit, and not "just smells like it". So what does it mean to be a part-time Punekar? How does one find this city(?), as a part-timer?
<br />
<br />This is three part series on Pune. <hr>
<br />
<br /><span class="fullpost">
<br /><b>Part One: Pune's Traffic</b>
<br />
<br />You think you've seen it all, bad roads, lack of traffic sense in the bikers, rash driving, etc... You think your city is the absolute nadir (or epitome -- if you think this is something to be proud of -- and I've seen that attitude with genuine Punekars. They'll tell you horrible stories of Pune's traffic, almost with a pride) with respect to traffic, you haven't driven in Pune. This city already boasts of the highest number of automobiles after Delhi, according to some report I read recently (which might be wrong, but that's irrelevant). But for all these astronomical numbers, the traffic sense of average Punekar can be summed as <i>look ahead, try not to bump into anyone in the front</i>. Everything else is <i>chalta hai</i>. So you have PMT (Pune Municipal Transport -- yes there is such a thing) buses stopping right at the center of the road (if you're lucky -- otherwise in the rightmost lane), the auto-wallahs (the ubiquitous auto-rickshaw drivers) taking a u-turn out of nowhere (that even Rajiv Malhortra would be proud of), cyclists moving in rows, you ask for a violation, and it's there. For US returned citizens though, it's easier to adjust. Overtaking is by consensus to be done from left, and in general, if you use the right side of the road for driving, no one seems particularly offended. For those wanting to drive in Pune, here are a few tips:
<br />
<br />1) Buy a cellphone if you don't have one, and always use it while driving, it's considered a sign of novice driver, to stop to take a call. If you have to stop, don't bother taking your vehicle to the side of the road. Stop right where you are, or better keep on driving at a sluggish place. People will respect you more.
<br />
<br />2) Stopping at signals is passe. The in thing is to hang around for couple of seconds, pay homage to the red-light (which probably signifies all the blood that our freedom fighters have shed for us) and move along. It's very dangerous to stop at a red-light, especially if there is a PMT or some heavy motor vehicle behind you (the red-light will then signify your blood). If you need to stop at the signals, raise your arm half from a kilometer back.
<br />
<br />3) If anyone honks, and is expecting that you give him the side, DON'T move. In general, you're not supposed to think about anyone behind you. Especially true if s/he's honking. That only means s/he is deciding which side is more comfortable for overtaking. You're supposed to hold your line (and not bump into anyone in the front, remember?)
<br />
<br />4) If you yourself want to overtake there is a complicated algorithm, that I'll try to simplify: basically the strategy depends on the vehicle you're trying to overtake
<br /> <b>PMT/Water-tankers</b>: (this latter is a menacing vehicle that's driven by people who generally can't even differentiate between the forward and reverse gears) forget it.
<br /><b> Auto</b>: Move marginally to the right (don't need to look in the rear view mirrors, they'll manage your sudden lane transition) and honk.. the auto-wallah will move towards the right.. then you move back to left, and if you don't mind overtaking from the left go ahead. If you have to overtake from the right (a habit, you should unlearn fast, if you want to stay here) honk again, the auto-wallah will move to the left too.. now shoot past him from right.
<br /><b> Cycle</b>: May go bless you. Try not to hurt him/her as you overtake.
<br /><b> Biker </b>(and this includes every moped): If under 30, s/he'll start a race with you. Watch the Terminator bike chase, and get some ideas. Otherwise, swiftly overtake from the left.
<br />
<br />5) Right of the way: The earlier you forget that there is such a thing, the better for your metal well-being. Basically, <i>dil chahta hai</i> is the equivalent of this concept. You want to turn? Turn. You want to cross? cross. You think you've the right of the way, you have it. And so has everyone else. Afterall, it's not for no reason that they ask you "sadak kya tere baap ki hai kya?".
<br />
<br />6) Disable the low beam on you vehicle. People here can't spot low beams well. They might not be able to see you approaching.
<br />
<br />For more tips, you'll have to buy my upcoming book.
<br />
<br /><b>Part 2: The People </b>(Coming Soon -- Very Soon, as a true Punekar will say it)
<br /></span>asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1097039360120505012004-10-05T21:26:00.000-07:002004-10-05T22:09:20.120-07:00Of Cynics, Love and Birthdays"So what are your plans for today?", good@heart friends ask me.
<br />
<br />Like I say, people are darn curious. And darn too full of ideas -- for others.
<br />
<br />"Nothing so far", I start safely, knowing damn well it doesn't work like that. If anything, it buys you a little bit of time.
<br />
<br />"What do you mean nothing? oh, so it's a secret kya?"
<br />
<br />That's the problem with truth. People are not used to it. You tell them any lie, and they'll not just swallow it, they'll munch on it. But you gotta live with that, (sigh etc.)
<br />
<br />"No seriously, we haven't planned anything."
<br />
<br />"Take her out to dinner!", People don't take hints, do they? Never! Why does it always happen to me? Do I ever go and tell someone what they should do on their wife's B'day? Don't they manage without my inputs, anyways? So why do they think I can't? One more of life's whys, that one's gotta ask periodically.
<br />
<br /><i>It's like my wife's belief that unless she tells me to take a shower, I wouldn't! Like I'd sit there with the morning paper for the whole of the morning, and leave for my office in my nightsuite. (sigh etc.)</i>
<br />
<br />"Well, we don't like to eat out. It's so unhealthy, eating out, you know. These days, you gotta watch you diet", if you don't budge, neither would I, you good@heart friend.
<br />
<br />"Come on! One day won't kill you!"
<br />
<br />"How about I cook something for her?"
<br />
<br />"Like what?", I don't get this. I mean, I can cook maggie for all you care. How does it affect anybody -- except for my wife, of course.
<br />
<br />"Potato chips", I <i>chip</i> in, remembering the incident day before, with one of the new joinees in our company. When asked who all could cook, this guy raises his hand. When asked what does he cook, that's the answer he gave: and I'm not making this up!
<br />
<br />"Don't tell me if you don't have to"
<br />
<br />"Okay", yuppiiiieee-yuhooooo..
<br />
<br />"You're impossible! Anyways, what did you gift her?"
<br />
<br />"Nothing", knowing full well, I'm just making it worse. Why can't I lie, like everyone around me? Even the great <i>Dhramraj Yudhishthir</i> did that.
<br />
<br />"Now don't tell me she doesn't like gifts"
<br />
<br />"She doesn't like gifts <i>on her B'day</i>. She thinks it's waste of money, and unnecessary, and predictable."
<br />
<br />"How about a bunch of roses? That doesn't cost much does it?"
<br />
<br />"It's so goddamn predictable! It's like declaring that you're out of ideas"
<br />
<br />"You are pathetic! Excuses is all you've got"
<br />
<br />Maybe so, friend. But then aren't B'days and anniversaries themselves excuses -- for when you love someone (and I mean all forms of love), <i>occasion</i> is the last thing that you need to tell them that. Isn't any day goodenuff for that?
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1096608312259802922004-09-30T22:14:00.000-07:002004-09-30T22:26:38.393-07:00Of Unknown Poets and Life FundaesRecently, I finished re-reading a Marathi book : <i>Tu Bhramat Ahasi Waya</i> (loosely translated -- You're wandering unnecessarily, a line from <i>Dnyaneshwari</i> if I'm not wrong), by Vasant Kale (known as Va. Pu. Kale or just Vapu). He was one of the distinguishing writers in Marathi, appreciated both by masses and classes. This book is like the pinnacle of his writing, synthesizing thoughts from Kabir to Dnyaneshwar seamlessly. If there is one complaint I have against this book, it's that some of the quotations are without any source. For instance, here is an excerpt of a hindi poem that one of the characters in the book recites: <blockquote><i>jeevan me madhu ka pyala tha
<br />tumne tanman de dala tha
<br />wah tut gaya to tut gaya
<br />madiralay ka aangan dekho
<br />kitne pyale hil jate hain
<br />gir mitti-me mil jate hain
<br />par bolo tute pyalon par
<br />kab madiralay pachtata hain?
<br />
<br />mridu mitti ke hain bane hue
<br />madhughat futa hi karte hain
<br />phri bhi madiralay ke andar
<br />madhughat hain, madhu-pyale hain
<br />jo madkta ke mare hain
<br />woh madhu luta hi karte hain
<br />
<br />jiski mamta ghat-pyalon par
<br />woh kaccha peene wala hai
<br />joh sacche madhu se jala hua
<br />kab rota hai chillata hai?</i></blockquote>Does anyone know who is the poet? For some time I believed that it's Hariwanshrai Bachchan, but then I searched in few of his anthologies, and couldn't find this. Anyways, if anyone knows source of these excerpts, I'll be indebted if you could share that with me...
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1096544396637747272004-09-30T04:19:00.000-07:002004-09-30T04:39:56.636-07:00Question of TrustWith some reservations, I'm blogging on this subject. TOI, Sep 23, had this news item: <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/860461.cms">Army gets women recruits examined by male docs</a>, which I found quite a non-campaign. <blockquote>Normally it's up to a woman whether she wishes to go to a female or a male gynecologist. In fact, most prefer female practitioners. But it seems the Indian Army doesn't give women the choice..</blockquote> For one, this is like questioning professionalism of Army (or any male) gynecologist. Secondly, to expect Army to provide for <i>preferences</i> (sic) of recruits is, frankly, ridiculous! What next? An upper caste doctor for upper caste males who prefer not being touched by the so-called untouchables? Where will this stop. Somewhere, one has to accept professionals as professionals! On a lighter note (I couldn't resists this!) what if the female gynecologist that Army manages to hire turns out to be a closet lesbian?
<br />
<br />Thankfully, some Priya Mansingh calls spade a spade in letters to editor: <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/868096.cms">Miss Misfit</a>: <blockquote> This is with reference to the news item 'Army gets women recruits examined by male docs' (Sep 23). It is amazing that a young girl about to join the armed forces should have such outdated views. As an army officer's wife, I would like to allay Ms Moudgil's fears and remind her that the army prides itself of gentlemanly behaviour.
<br />
<br />The army recruitment ads say 'DO YOU HAVE IT IN YOU?' It seems Ms Moudgil does not have it in her to rough it. It would be better if she joins some other profession. With her mediaeval mindset she is likely to raise many a storm when posted to difficult and isolated army stations with male colleagues. </blockquote> Okay, so what if that bit about Gentlemanly behaviour is a bit exaggerated... asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1092312731673373212004-08-12T04:53:00.000-07:002004-08-12T05:16:17.290-07:00Are Indians Insanely Optimistic?Time and again, Indians show a sense of optimism that borders on unreasonable. Especially so in sporting domains. For instance, the latest <a href="http://www.rediff.com/sports/athens04.htm">Redif survey</a> (in the wake of a crackpot <a href="http://in.news.yahoo.com/040809/43/2ff2w.html">study</a> by PWC [<em>who at least get paid for their crackpot studies in general</em>], which predicted a similar result for India) when asked will India win <b>10</b> medals at the Athens Olympics, a whooping <b>81%</b> (currently) are saying yes! Now I know surveys are a crackpot device themselves, but still, I mean, even for fun how can someone click a yes ;-). And this isn't a one-off case either. The last World Cup final, similar numbers were sure India will win (including your truly ;-)).
<br />
<br />Neither is this optimism a constant. There is a huge fluctuation in the face of first bad result -- like our hockey team losing to some sub-standard team. Then suddenly the polls go ulta. Optimism and pessimism are the two sides of the same coin, eh? so if not insane, are we at least a maniac-depressive society?
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1092032379090475382004-08-08T22:35:00.000-07:002004-08-09T01:41:48.330-07:00Paradise Lost (and Found)Somehow <a href="http://www.timeasia.com">Time Asia</a> is the last place where I'd have expected to find anything sublime, but they proved me wrong. The July 26-Aug 2 <a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/0,13674,501040726,00.html">Issue</a> of Time Asia is an eminently readable one, for it captures diverse images of Asia. In one of the articles,<a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/2004/journey/china_zhang.html">All Is Not Lost</a>, Jonathan Spence tells the story of Zhang Dai, a Seventeenth century Chinese historian/scholar, who lost almost everything in the Manchu invasion of 1644, and tried to reconstruct his <i>lost paradise</i>: <blockquote>The initial impulse to recapture the past, Zhang Dai tells us, sprang from a trip he made to the celebrated West Lake in Hangzhou in the early 1650s, when the fighting had ended in Manchu victory and he traveled back to the city to see what had survived. He found the villas laid waste, the people scattered, the charm vanished. His first reaction was simple despair, followed by a grinding sense of loss. But those emotions were superseded by the <u>realization that he had known in detail what had now vanished, and thus the images he could conjure up might serve to replace the loss and the waste. The reality that he retained was the reality that would survive, and thus the loss was lessened.</u></blockquote> Howard Roark, the superhuman (or unreal, as most critics would say) hero in Ayn Rand's <i>The Fountainhead</i> says: <i>We live in our minds, and existence is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality, to state it in gesture and form.</i> Zhang Dai's story is an illustration of that precept. Incidentally, the theme of the Time Asia's said <a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/0,13674,501040726,00.html">issue</a> is <i>search for paradise</i>, and the inherent subjectivity of the very idea. So for a women in <a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/2004/journey/laos.html">Laos</a> (belonging to the Hmong tribe) the image of the Australian author's wife, relaxing on a rock alongside a beach is the mortal image of a paradise. For every paradise lost then, there is an opportunity for finding one, or even <i>recreating</i> one.asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1091771732924145752004-08-05T21:58:00.000-07:002004-08-05T23:41:22.643-07:00The Empire Strikes BackWhen I wrote in a <a href="http://asuph.blogspot.com/2004/08/gennext-will-bloggers-define-tomorrows.html">blog</a> recently, that: <blockquote>But then, for all we know, in a few years, the mainstream media might have adapted itself to the blogging world! We should just keep our fingers crossed.</blockquote> I was not aware that the mainstream media - the gigantic empire that is supposed to make or brake fortunes of politicians and artists alike, is already taking a note, and gearing up into defense. Well, it's happening already, and somehow I've a feeling, this isn't a one-off phenomenon. We would see a lot of this in coming days and months. What am I talking about? Here is a NYT article (needs registration) about the bloggers being invited to cover the recent Democratic National Convention in the US.
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/politics/campaign/26blog.html?ex=1091869880&ei=1&en=b5cacbfb289268b8">Web Diarists Are Now Official Members of Convention Press Corps</a>
<br />
<br />As usual, NYT packs it's punch in the very subject line itself by clubbing all bloggers -- including freelance journalists -- into a condescending tag of <i>web diarists</i>. Well, etymologically blog is just a web journal or a diary, but surely there is more to life than etymology ;). What it does however is reduce the importance of the blogging phenomenon in the eyes of the yet neutral readers.
<br />
<br />In <a href="http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/07/26/demeaning_bloggers_the_nytimes_is_running_scared.php">Demeaning bloggers: the NYTimes is running scared</a> (which probably repeats the NYT's folly of biasing the subjectline for effect) Danah Boyd observes correctly that: <blockquote>The entire spin of the article focuses on how bloggers are like children in a candy store - naive, inexperienced and overwhelmed by what is now available to them. The article focuses on the minutia of blogging, emphasizing that bloggers won’t really cover the real issues, but provide the “low-brow” gossip.</blockquote> Going back to the NYT article, the big-media game of crying objectivity-foul, and take a moral high-ground on the basis of definition: <blockquote>"I think that bloggers have put the issue of professionalism under attack," said Thomas McPhail, professor of media studies at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, who argues that journalists should be professionally credentialed. "They have no pretense to objectivity. They don't cover both sides."</blockquote> Observe that the very notion of objectivity of the mainstream media (and the lack of it in bloggers) is introduced as a <i>subjective opinion</i> of a Professor (lending it an air of authority). However, I agree with the basic assumption that conventional journalism keeps <i>objectivity</i> as a noble aim (which is violated every other second, but we'll let that pass for now) whereas bloggers don't even pretend to be objective. Afterall, they are voicing <i>their</i> opinion. But the holy-cow of objectivity in reporting is just that -- a product of media's collective virtual reality kit. The coverage that India has got in the omniscient western press is enough to drive the point home.
<br />
<br />Danah Boyd in her Salon.com article <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/07/28/demoblog/">The new blogocracy</a> offers defense for blogging: <blockquote> Blogging is a relatively young phenomenon, and its growing pains and identity search are ever transparent. The tendency of bloggers to talk about blogging is often criticized, yet this practice of self-reflection is precisely what makes blogging a valuable contribution to public discourse. Bloggers are highly critical, questioning creatures. Whatever their subject, they document their observations and examine them inquisitively.</blockquote> The article also talks about the objectivity/subjectivity issue that's very much at the centre of this war: <blockquote>As a practice, journalism espouses an air of objectivity, purporting to cover all sides of a debate, equally and with emotional distance. While few believe that journalists are unbiased, it is considered a respectable aim of the profession and readers expect them to be as objective as possible. Bloggers, on the other hand, have no such cultural code and their readers rarely hold them accountable for objectivity. In fact, what makes blogging confusing for many is that the practices encompassed by that term are quite diverse.</blockquote> In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553299611/104-2990534-8659165?v=glance">Lila: An Enquiry Into Morals</a>, Robert M. Pirsig talks about the objectivity <i>wall</i> that's protecting the whole field of cultural anthropology. But objective cultural anthropology is like objective journalism -- good only in theory. You only see what you want to see! So NYT is really walking on a thin ice of objectivity. The Salon piece goes deeper into the issue: <blockquote>There appear to be four primary conceptual paradigms that frame blogging: 1) journalism; 2) diarying or journaling; 3) note passing; 4) fieldbook note taking. Everyone is trying to make sense of blogging by stuffing it into one of these paradigms, but in fact, it is a new practice that transcends all four while drawing on aspects from all of them</blockquote> <a href="http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/columnsbyauthor.asp?authid=478">Rajiv Malhotra</a>, <a href="http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/columnsbyauthor.asp?authid=11593">Sankran Sanu</a> and others on <a href="http://www.sulekha.com">Sulekha</a> have argued precisely that the Western (and hence Indian) academics have always tried to fit in the Indic culture in western paradigms -- and with disastrous results. Instead of using such opportunities to enlarge or even replace paradigms, the power centers have this tendency of stuffing the data into paradigms, discarding alleged dichotomies, contradictions. This is because, when a model changes, power centers change, and who would let that happen? Certainly not those who <i>are</i> at the center.
<br />
<br />Thankfully, the Salon article chooses to elaborate on the nuances of this interesting debate on the role of bloggers in the media order. A very insightful paragraph (emphasis mine) <blockquote>Blogging will not replace traditional journalism, <u>but it presents a threat to the normative press culture and an opportunity for radical reporting. Bloggers do place the issue of professionalism under attack, not by being unprofessional, but by exposing the ways in which the media operates.</u> As blogging reaches the masses, people are introduced to information that was not reported because it did not suit the party line. Bloggers will happily document the power games that they witness in the press room and will expose future Jayson Blairs. <u>Bloggers also capture information that the mainstream press does not yet realize is valuable</u> ...</blockquote> I feel that bloggers <i>should not</i> try and replace the mainstream journalism. Afterall, <i>they</i> are the new phenomenon. Let the mainstream media adapt. The alternative media should stick to their niche. The future is too complex to predict anyway. What is certain is that we're at interesting crossroads.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1091538309086841112004-08-03T05:56:00.000-07:002004-08-03T06:05:09.086-07:00Quote of the Week<blockquote><b>You never read your own books. I don't know how anybody can. When you write a book it's a way of getting rid of something that you don't particularly want back. Like dain' a shite.</b></blockquote> <i>Irvine Welsh, <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1261887,00.html">interview</a>ed in the weekend’s Observer</i> (Thanks to the <a href="http://maudnewton.com/index.htm">Maud Blog</a>)
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1091522985698857772004-08-03T01:09:00.000-07:002004-08-03T01:49:45.696-07:00The GenNext: Will Bloggers Define Tomorrow's Journalism?In <a href="http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/005052.php">The Next Generation of Journalists Will Start as Bloggers</a>, Ernest Miller writes (thanks to this Smart Mobs <a href="http://www.smartmobs.com/archives/003530.html">blog</a>) : <blockquote><font color="#c08080">Why don't we take a look at the future of journalism and blogging a few years down the road? Where will the next generation of journalists be learning their craft and filing their first stories? I think an awful lot of them will learn through the process of blogging. Often, the people who become journalists do so because they like to learn about new things, they like to find stories, and they like to write and pass those stories on. If journalism is in their blood at a young age, they're going to start blogging long before they set foot in a J-School. School newspapers are passé, school blogs are cool.</font></blockquote> Indeed! The best thing about blogging is that you are your own boss. If you can convince yourself that something needs to be said, that's all it takes for a blog to come into existence (and of course, the writing part!). Thing is, the kind of instant feedback that you might get in blogs is much valuable, especially so in the <i>formative years</i>. However, too much of feedback might destroy (or significantly hamper) the natural growth of the writer -- the development of his/her unique style. So how soon is okay?
<br />
<br />Besides, blogging is very different from journalism in the sense that journalism is this <i>objective</i> discipline (in theory at least!) where as blogs are inherently subjective. That is NOT bad <i>per se</i>, in fact that is the USP of blogs. But once one is used to that kind of editorial freedom how does one really adapt to the mainstream media? But then, for all we know, in a few years, the mainstream media might have adapted itself to the blogging world! We should just keep our fingers crossed.
<br />
<br />
<br />asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1090560648802274002004-07-22T22:18:00.000-07:002004-07-22T22:30:48.803-07:00Being GreatGot in touch with an ex-colleague after a long time and when I asked her how she is, the answer was "<i>I'm great!</i>", and suddenly I felt, why can't I say that anymore? If asked, I'd probably say, "I'm fine" or "I'm good" or somethng like that. Why? Why do we let the petty things in life put us down in hundreds of ways? Surely I knew how to feel great! Or was <i>that</i> just the lack of the <i>unbearable emptiness of knowing?</i>.
<br />
<br />-EOM-asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6897571.post-1090387589479349092004-07-20T22:18:00.000-07:002004-07-21T01:45:12.750-07:00Quote of the weekCame across this great quota early in the morning today, thought it's worth sharing...
<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><b></b></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>
<br /> "I mean you must take living so seriously </b></span><b>
<br /> <span style="font-size:85%;">that even at seventy, for example, you will plant olives - </span>
<br /> <span style="font-size:85%;">and not so they'll be left for your children either, </span>
<br /> <span style="font-size:85%;">but because even though you fear death you don't believe it, </span>
<br /> <span style="font-size:85%;">because living, I mean, weighs heavier." </span></b>
<br /> <span style="font-size:85%;">(from 'On Living' -- <i><b>Nazim Hikmet</b></i>)</span>
<br />
<br />
<br /> asuphhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11940618528430910008noreply@blogger.com0