Tuesday, December 11, 2012

The sad tale of John & Sarah III

Continued from http://honnasiriscatch.blogspot.in/2012/09/the-sad-tale-of-john-sarah-ii.html

But then, things had gotten better. John had gone from indulging himself with stones to share his fate with to sharing some of it with Sarah. But even that was not to last. Poor ol' John was the the victim of a change in convenience or so it seemed. It was difficult to tell. Sarah had gone back to square 1. John was again undone by the gross result of the fallback.

In the process to re-establish themselves, he realised a very true truth that he ignored all along. While this was one of the many times lines were crossed, this line has never been crossed before. Never ever. All the other lines were alright - but this, no. This was like an insult. If not to to Sarah, then surely to John. An insult to John that even if he wanted to make good, like times before, he just didn't have the resolve to because it was like soiling his soul. No man should soil his soul with the colour of inconvenience. No man ever.

Sadly enough, the story cannot go further because John won't soil his soul and, like when the story started, John has no clue about Sarah.   

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Turn on activist mode (put on the extra compassionate)

Now that Israel has started bombing the Gaza Strip again, it seems we have international activist mode turned on - as if it turned on the extra compassionate in us. I found it interesting that it, in this case, became a fight for the weaker and not for justice. The side that kills the most people is the side that becomes the ruthless killer. Here's the principle that's troubling. Life's complicated, especially when trying not to follow the 'eye for an eye' principle. If the feeling isn't mutual, you'd end up with none. And when you know the feeling isn't mutual, you know that if you don't do something about it, somebody gonna get a very big hurt very soon.

Activist mode is when you are not among those getting hurt, but when the extra compassionate comes on. The other mode is when you're in the thick of it and you are busy enough ensuring you keep your two eyes. Sometimes keeping one is a more realistic hope and keeping the other one is a bonus. It's easy to play activist. You just create principles. When your minding your eyes, you usually don't have a choice. You may do things you regret, but to keep your eyes, you have to. You really don't have time to think. Some people wouldn't know what it's like to live next to an ever-threatening neighbour. They strangely can't even relate to a situation where he would actually become that threat in action and you respond to keep you and your own.

People have told me Gaza doesn't direct bombs at Israel. They throw eggs and tomatoes. Maybe they should pass that information onto Iran who is funding Hamas, who is responsible for the act. They'd want to know how their money is being spent. I'm sure they didn't give it for tomatoes and eggs. There are comparisons of inflictions which are more on the Gaza side like this. Their opinions tend towards Israel being inhumane. Well, one would hardly think that Israeli government has a lack of PS2 commando games to score points that way. The Hamas guys fired a lot more fire power. They either landed in open areas or were intercepted. The losses could be because the independent Gaza administration really hasn't done much in its seven years of rule to improve the situation over in Gaza, maybe.

There also this open air prison accusation. The reason why it is an open air prison is because since 2007, it has been ruled by Hamas. A result of this has been the blockades so that military firepower doesn't go in on Israel's part so that it isn't fired back and on Egypt's part for similar security and terrorist group recognition concerns. Even Egypt, Palestine's ally, bails on them for reasons of merit.
                       
A exact parallel probable situation is if the Taliban forms a political party and comes to power with its ideologies intact. We wouldn't accept that, but we would accept Hamas as the rulers of Gaza. To add to which, they seized power in a coalition leaving out the other partner and use money from Iran to fire bombs at Israel. Maybe Iran and Hamas can be taken seriously if they use that money for the upliftment of Gaza.

It's easy to cry, and cry hoarse, but it's more effective, objective, reasonable, true and just to not let emotions rule the day, especially when you're formulating their independent acceptable standards in perfect comfort. This post is not to make a case for Israel. The details are just for substantiation. It's meant to highlight how we selectively can become (or became) passionate about some things conveniently when it's clearly not the case. Avaaz has been making a strange case, getting tears out of ducts by the many, but their case holds no merit except putting on the ignorant (or blind) extra compassionate. There are also many photos being posted on FB towards the same effect.

What's also interesting to note is that the only crime is the consequence. You could send in as many bombs as you like but what you can't end up hurting hapless, innocent people (like how they also hurt hapless innocent people who apparently are insidious murderers because they are bombing them *back* to keep their eyes).

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Importance Of Pre-Purpose (The potential of non-pragmatic ideation)

Ideas engulf the world we live in, more than we know. Everything is at its core an idea that is not a pragmatic one. It does not have a populist base. It is a cause that, by itself, floats in a space that is not what you get to eventually see. It's far deeper and intense. The only way you can crack it is by staring at a wall incessantly till it comes. The only explanation for it can only be pure divine intervention, which does happen quite often.

What separates something driven by a pragmatic idea from something driven by a non-pragmatic populist one is what makes it stick - depth, that is. Depth that you can achieve by staring at that wall till you're transported to such a parallel world, one that you never imagined to exist. It gives it that magnetic feel about it that gets people to wonder where the heck the idea came from (the uncreative lot) but yet attracts them to something they don't understand at all. Moments and ideas that creative folk like me live for. Something that constantly sets the bar high for uncreative people like other folk. Something that is also very annoying because they get the impression that true genius falls from the sky and every good idea must be better (read more 'likeable' by them) from the last one they saw.

They have not yet been introduced to the tight idea. The virtue of which is not decided by subjectivity that is as ridiculous. The kind of idea that is of such genius they won't have the option to like it. It will dissolve into their lives and rule the roost without them knowing it. They won't praise it but it will sell and they would be the buyers if it was a product. It's like a pre-90's song that lasts generations as opposed to a machine produced songs of machine produced singing celebrities that make the charts for like some months with some luck. That some last on the charts for years only shows that there are ones that are clearly worse that missed their luck when the machine's algorithm got it wrong.

What that also brings to light is not only pre-purpose but also basic purpose. Anything that strikes someone non-creative as really cool that has this depth has to have a real story behind it, or be really lame. While the former case is most prevalent, it also is reflective that even the person to whom praise is due needs some story for it to be as cool. In most cases, the person has a whole novel, though, behind it.

So when you really do crack an idea, what you've done is stare at that wall because all you can do is stare at that wall. The idea is always bigger than you and you have to discover it. It can't be brought to book. It can never be brought to book. It's your thinking that needs to be brought to book. Only when you have the strength to admit a creative handicap during a deserving instance, you deserve to be transported to that parallel world - but you have to earn it. But - take notes - keen research and observation of ground reality go farther than you think. The better you have that as your basis, the better the objective impact of the idea, the more the success of it, not necessarily including the praise about how "cool" the eventual idea may or may not be.

Friday, November 2, 2012

Progressive Much?

You can't defeat what's written in stone
Discount the sweat and tears in its blood and bones
These things are built over years and years
They aren't your dice to throw around
Progressive much? I'm afraid not so.

Hand close to heart
Swear to never move away
What we've got is what will stay
It can morph into itself at best
Progressive hardly, but no real change as such

Did you forget to read the sign on the wall?
I'm afraid your time's coming to stall
The ante has been raised to a bar above your head
You should at least learn to stay afloat, or you'll be dead
Progressive indeed is the way to go

There's a corner coming round the bend
It's coming up slowly, be prepared
You have to choose between duck and hide and climb upon, but you've gotta take it on
Kill it, ride on it or hang on to its tail
Like it or not, it will prevail
Progressive Any? You're the first in line

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

The New Bad Word In Town

We, in morality replete India, are full of taboo phobia - either because we are soft (which we are) or we know that others are soft. Wait, no, not soft. Sensitive is the politically right term (and sometimes haughtily arrogant). When you dig deeper, you also find that we also make the active (or silent) choice to be the product of ourselves. We are like that only types. We just are, we take it way more seriously than we ourselves will possibly admit or imagine and you have to respect that. Otherwise we shoot you down.

Another thing we really love is our dislike for bad words. We just outright hate some words. British, America, Western... Add to that 'foreign' - the one that the F in FDI stands for in the most recent bad word dislike phobia outbreak that has occurred. It's not so much about the pros and cons. It seems like the phobia that the British instilled into us when they cushioned themselves in on our bounty and threw us out after. Modern diplomacy indeed is forgiving or we'd be giving them a harrowing time about it still.

That apart, we really are so scared of those bad words we don't even want to grapple with them reasonably. Foreign is not bad, not when it will bring in much needed cash to bring the Indian Govt's bank accounts up to speed. Where it may slowly, or slyly, step into farmer's profits and your and my supermarket price, we'd have to *draw some lines. But the word is really not all that bad. At least not by the number of 'foreign' products we wear and use. At least not ideologically bad. We just can't come to terms with the concept of our juta being from Japani at the same time as our dil being from Hindustani. Well, if Hindustani was as good, we'd all rush to it. To be safe, we can just leave it to good taste - the only question is who's?

Another thing we don't realise is that there is nothing they can take away that's truly ours. Everything else that they can, which is ours indeed, can be rebuilt. The possessions that form our true and unstealable net worth as a nation are our abilities, commonhood, principles and values. If all the retail outlets soon in India are American owned, they can only work if we (India/Indians) allow them to. If we do sell themselves to them, only then do we sell out. It's not a government policy that sells out. We just need to be possessive enough about what's ours that can't be stolen away. Some education in that direction will do some good. Perhaps some watered down lessons in economics like this & this

Having said that, our national values, principles and commonhood aren't exclusive to being Indian. They are universal and have to do with respect, integrity, honesty and humanness in dealings and structure. We don't know whether Walmart will come and eventually exploit and plunder the nations like the British did. They are as American as are Vijay Mallya's liquor acquisitions abroad are Indian. As long its an American name stays a name while in India and better benefits are ours, we shouldn't have a problem. When and if they do, there'll be that line well defined in the *FDI in Retail policy. That should really be our only worry, really. 

Friday, September 28, 2012

The Exclusive Human Relationship Paradigm Constrict

Society is made of us and we are made in it. That stands true in more ways than we can ever know. Our discovery of how we naturally grow walled into them will always be only in part as it is an ever-advancing dynamic process and we wouldn't really be who we are today to even discover that little much about ourselves without them. Complicated much.

One of the many effects of this is our understanding of relationships, especially the ones we are exclusive about. We pre-divide them into exclusive ones and non-exclusive ones. Going further, we conveniently subscribe to and unconsciously defend various social relationship paradigms to ensure that what we make exclusive stays exclusive - until of course it works no more for us, after which we find someone else to be exclusive with. That amounts the entire effort to more an excuse for some exclusivity, or any at all for that matter. It protects more than explores, seeks to understand or shares. It has a code word - commitment. One that has a meaning that implies much more than being merely protectionist.  

Now don't get me wrong. I am not defending promiscuity. One's morality is his/her own business. The only concern is whether the pricks inside, if they be, when you do cross a line, if you do, aren't numbed as they increase, if and when they are on the increase. The principle: You shouldn't want to increasingly hate what you do while, at the same time, you proportionately increasingly thrive on it. I am only seeking to understand the obsession with exclusivity at all costs.

It is a socio-psychological construct, or perhaps a constrict. On one hand, it's the construct we grow around noticing and therefore emulate, like we do with many other constructs (some which fall in the same category). On the other hand, it's a need for that elusive 'someone'. I can see where 'fish' (we have to catch and keep them) comes from to some extent.

I think we have assumed a warped parallel, to begin with, when we 'pursue' relationships. Perhaps when we take actually falling in love a little more seriously, we really wouldn't pursue it at all. Having to fall in love would mean that we do it without prior knowledge of falling in love. In any other normal circumstance, we wouldn't be very excited about falling into anything that we don't expect. It's like digging a hole for yourself for the sheer thrill of falling into it, knowing exactly how and when you will fall into it and how it will be inside that hole - all the while pretending that the hole doesn't exist in the very spot that you dug it in. Some adventure that is.

The adventure really is when you embark on it like going on an endless road trip and you don't know what you're going to see. Like everyone else on the road who also are on similar adventures, the (other) possibilities of whom you will meet are ones you probably haven't considered, probably because you have no paradigm to stick within. There are no rules except that you're armed with yourself, as what you are mirrors against the things you do and the people you meet, and you decide what the aspirations for your person should be, or if you met them yet in people you've come across do far. It's an ongoing process.

Relationships shouldn't be the end of the process, neither should they end. They should be the means to so much more that they promise, and must be essentially forward cyclic. Self-realisation of a relationship is almost the end of it. Conscious and intended self-realization usually brings it to its death, or its couch potato status. They just lie there while we wallow in our sad dependence on how the relationship must function so that we can remain at peace with our unadventurous selves. We may numb the boredom but won't really help at all. We deal with otherwise.We treat like an appendix that needs to exist. We have externally customised them so that we can sit pretty more, and that's worked very well as we can see. 

Long before man found out that he cannot possibly be an island, he always wasn't. After he found out and continues to theorise about it, he always never will be one, even if he tries to ensure that in ways efficiently impossible. Before he theorised about it, he was also small-minded enough to rightly understand that he wouldn't really be able to wrap his arms around it for want of arm length and, sensibly, for the inherent natural unconscious discovering adventure that it was taking him on. Desperation has no place in there, unless we live in those theorised paradigms of understanding which clearly don't see the need for that extra arm length they so require to actually be able to bet a life on them completely.                                      

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Rip Down & Recreate Every time

To rip down & recreate every time. That's something I've discovered the joy of, and have begun to understand, lately. I think, if applied to the individual(s) (collectively as well) and the world, it does a great deal of refreshment in an otherwise well-oiled machine we call our lives and well-run society.

Over time, we fall into the trap of routine and system. We just do what we do because that's what we do. Lots of times we do that based on natural reason - the kind of reason that governs anything that adds up to efficiency by itself.  Necessity, by virtue of itself, is self-definitive. We don't always control it. We just do it because it because it simply is necessary. We are governed by it. If we weren't, we'd be irrelevant first to ourselves and then the world around us.When not governed by it (fancy rich kids types), we are living in our own little bubbles driven by worlds of our own imagination (mostly holding our everyday lives to ransom by things we don't understand but yet submit to only God knows why). It's a very fear infested lifestyle.

The Rip Down & Recreate Every Time method is simple. Each time you do something, rip it down from the last time you did it, and recreate it, each single time. When you rip something down and recreate it each time, you completely break it down and rebuild from scratch. And with the increasing number of times you do it, it will be driven by purpose over method, not method over purpose, therefore being as naturally necessary as required to keep it in updated relevant focus. It will work better as opposed to a method repeating the old method over again.                   

When you actually put to practice, you find that it either convinces you more of what you already have been doing or it completely lifts your method to a new level of relevance, and therefore engagement. So while you may end up playing out the old method, you keep the basics right. If you simply played out the old method anyway, and didn't rip down first, you really didn't naturally gauge the requirement and will tend to be more irrelevant.

It gives whatever you do the means to keep your life exciting, fresh, real, necessary, without the fluff, unnonsensical, not overgrown and absolutely relevant. You just don't have to do it physically. If you do it in your mind first, and your present world makes the right sense that's all of this, it's good to go. The only fear you have to face in the process is that of your present comfort zone of functioning.

A large motivating factor to being able to rip down & recreate every time is that you shouldn't be jaded, at least yet, and unconsciously comfortable with the world and its well-oiledness persisting that it continue to run lest the world falls apart with its delicate support system. The problem, if that's where you are, is that when you have to replace it, it takes way a world of support for so many people who live in boxed, uncreative, drab and sometimes soulless madness that isn't really worth the everyday effort.

When you rip down and recreate every time, you open your world and let in any new kind air that might be around. You stay constantly updated. You prevent yourself from getting bored with the machinery that runs your life. You throw out the machinery and get something you can assemble how you choose to, not fixing in what does not suit your purpose.

Rip down and recreate every time. If you don't do it now, you will be forced to adapt when it will be an absolute necessity to, and when you have enough insulation to resist even that, you have means that are better used in the hands of other people who really need them. Remember that everything is always bigger that what it is/seems to be. If you don't peek over the wall, you'll never know.
(click for article)                             

     

Thursday, September 6, 2012

The sad tale of John & Sarah II

Continued from http://honnasiriscatch.blogspot.in/2011/07/sad-tale-of-john-sarah-p.html

So now, John had gotten used to being sad and gloomy. He said, "You stick with certain things that you know you won't find round just any corner." Alas, there he was walking down the road. Looking down at the road, he started kicking the odd loose stone from the tar that hit his floater sole. He was stunned. After all, he had jumped in with a pin tightening his nostrils when he wouldn't even do that while diving into a real pool of water. All he could do was kick those loose stones off the road. If he didn't find any, the sorrow just got deeper.

His mind could not fathom why Sarah was so. Now really, concern about anything is shown in action, and isn't some weird mystical telepathy that two people enjoyed. It played out in communication, conversation, response and, most importantly, the true joy of knowing that two people celebrated. Apparently, this instance was an exception, but with the perks of not being one. How that privilege was attained, no one knew - but it was enjoyed. If anyone knew, and could explain that, only Sarah could, but she had left John's fate to be absorbed by the loose stones that he kicked off the tar on the road he was spending his gloom and sorrow on. Oh the sad tale that builds as a result breaks his heart. Of what what ill deserves he this? Pray tell, not his plunge with a pinned nose?                   

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Indian? Who? You? Me?

This comes after an off-the-cuff discussion on Facebook about the British being good or bad for us. We've all had a million put together, I know, but this was a little more specific and had a lot to take home. From the many conclusions I reached during the course of the discussion, one, which was strongly contested, was about when we became India indeed.

When we study about India in our history books, we are referring to what we became (and what became) years later, as a culmination of those identities. We weren't India yet, until the British proclaimed the Indian Subcontinent as one of their territories overseas. We were Bharata Varsa a long time ago, according to the Puranas. India is the Greek word for "beyond the Indus". But we really never meant what we mean so passionately when we say India now until we were one people under British suffering. Our unity was not in our common culture, but in our common suffering.

Before that, we were small little and humungously huge kingdoms who pursued our own interests each. There was no national interest that we all celebrated despite being so divided. One of the contentions of the argument was that when the British came and offered peace with these kingdoms with riders that spelt control, the kingdoms "sold out"; they were, at the most, "thousands" of them and "crores" of us. I responded that the kingdoms simply responded in their own interests and didn't "sell out". Saying they did so would be commenting subjectively on individual expression of values. Their submission to the British invaders did not betray national sentiment simply because there was no national sentiment to betray because we were just a bunch of small little and humungously huge kingdoms who pursued our own interests each. Even if there were crores of us, we still had to count ourselves in whole bunches of lakhs because our interests headed in different directions.

Another assertion made during the argument was that it was the British that made us realise that we were better off as one nation, as opposed to killing each other all the time. Well, we weren't exactly killing each other all the time. We were basically happy people doing exactly what kingdoms do, which includes sometimes making war which results in loss of life to various degrees. We weren't going at it at a pace as a result of which we'd eventually kill ourselves.

Here's what I'm getting at: the assertion that it's because of the British that we are India and Indians. We both agreed on this but with different approaches. His was that they (the British), at the end of it all, drove some sense into our heads about this identity of ours and we should be ever grateful to them. We would've either remained warring kingdoms or been all killed, whichever came earlier. Mine was that our unity has a political history that is not natural. By no instance of natural consequence would we be the India we are today.

Had the British not decided to swoop down on us, going by the pattern of many similar small kingdoms that did join up into nations, or those kingdoms that came to have modern citizen serving administrative systems, we'd actually be better off and on our own. We'd have the glory of the Nizams, a more awesome Dusshera, Kashmir in all its beauty (minus China's bogus occupation tactic) and lots more. What's more we wouldn't have to struggle with our Indian identity. It'd be perfectly Indian, as we would have probably called it in the case of another eventuality, but without the generalisation that throws out most of the nuances of our subcultures, languages and traditions under that common bracket.

That would have not made us unIndian. It would have allowed us to fully understand what being Indian really is, if we can really do that completely. The tag sorta narrows down our perspective on what is Indian indeed. The consequence of being banded together as Indians is that we've diluted all of these cultures into one, not fully representing each (or enough) of them. To do so in the first place is an impossible proposition. On the other hand, to aim to completely live alongside each one, keeping our own, is very doable.

Today, we're stuck with an unnatural cultural identity, choosing between so many options of language, tradition and values - most of which we don't really know (a lot of us). I say choosing because we are, more and more, growing up among varied kinds of cultural expression that is norm, which aren't practices we are naturally proud of because we didn't grow up with them. Those of us who are brought up in naturally conservative setups, each with their own degrees, will be able to keep away from the agony of that stock of choices and will have blood that's a little more mixed, I suppose.

Hindi isn't anymore Indian than Malayalam, but in either majority state, the other one's a foreign language. Case in point. God bless a Kerala born Bihari who spends his years living in Punjab and Manipur. Where you're from becomes a question no more. Who you are is a much more important question, and given the confusion, is a question that's all the more important. If you define yourself as a child of your specific ethnicity, you'd better be brought up like you know it like the back of your hand, or so it must be apparently.

A whole new young generation is probably making the easier rational choices among those - speaking more English, becoming more open-valued, actually being religion tolerant - resulting in a culture that is way more natural and preservable in blood lines than the stock of choices we are forced to choose from our wide ranged culture options. They are allowing norms and rules in society to be built naturally in an environment that encourages peaceful coexistence, without fighting over which language is spoken more (or spoken only), what traditions are celebrated more (or celebrated at all) and what culture is lifted more (or maintained at all). They're allowing a culture to be built primary centred around peaceful coexistence - one that holds no ideological stand with regards to tradition, language and place of origin. Those things are your private matter, as long as they ensure peaceful coexistence. They also make intermingling and cross cultural exchange natural and healthy.

The question is what is Indian indeed? Is Indian a name for anything that doesn't further confuse our present identity? That may have to be read locally, relevant to each pocket of local cultural extremism, in the light of which we'd have to give the question a lot more consideration.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

They got married off and they're... (Response to "You should get married. Or else" by Local Tea Party)

Response to http://thelocalteaparty.com/post/163416/69795

Now all this marriage fuss and all. Don't misunderstand off and all. I don't have any problem with those who marry. Let those who marry marry and those who don't let them stay unmarried. This matter clarified, I have been wondering about those who have taken the big giant leap. Many I know who simply took it off make me want to stay away only.

Now again don't jump to any sudden conclusions. This doesn't mean all of them. Some of them married because of boredom. Some of them because they became off old. But after all the fuss, I still scratch my head what the fuss is about.

Everything is same only after marriage. Only thing they have responsibility. And that also I have. They only have more. Sometimes I feel like they fully understand it is useless to admit the mistake or they are. Either that or they are like dodos. Simply marrying because everyone must marry eventually. They all married then only or like that only - eventually.

I mean it should make some difference no? You should become full happy and dance on air or something no? If after marriage you keep the same manner of relationship with everybody, life gets back to normal means there was no fun worth the fuss only. You will do the same if you were not married also. It is like some dream period in between the real life for the two people who get married before going back to the real life. Only difference is they are married. What is that? Full confusion only is coming.

Looking means for me it should be fully special. Not like this and all. I should be up in the air only on the first day. And from then it should be full turnaround. so boring they make it - that much exciting only it must be for me.

It should be full of magic, charm and all other things that make moments special. After setting an example, they suddenly do off one flop show of a next example.

Some say marriage is hard work. Sometimes in my mind I feel it is full hard work only. All magic, charm and all is rubbish. I don't know. I think I need one head massage. Full head is paining now only for me.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Ants up whose pants?

There's an understanding: the people who have problems are the people with the problems. The others don't have problems. Basically, if you are the one with the problem, ants are up your ass, not anybody else's. The other people, even if they have do have problems, understand them well enough to not allow any ants up theirs that they would want to complain about and move to make it a non-problem.

In India, freedom is a flag we like to wave - especially the freedom to protest. Actually more the freedom to get what's(at least what we claim to be) ours. It's like this. You take what's mine. I sit and demand it back in a peaceful democratic manner, despite knowing your actual plan from the very beginning. I knew you had an evil plan but couldn't pounce on you and catch you redhanded yet. Before I knew it, thanks to your evil plan, I lost something that's mine. Now knowing your evil plan, not having taken action and having lost something that was mine, I am left helpless and can only do what ends up being a token protest. Little do I realise that the authority I am protesting to has been rigged by you, unless of course I am protesting directly to you.

Now this being case, we must ascertain who the fools are here. I, who caught the bait and is hooked on to it while everything goes according to plan for you, or you, not realising that I give you the opportunity to work your plan and can choose when I wish to make that a non-possibility?

My take: the former. The latter is usually above reproach to people to whom he successfully subdues. But we must be thankful that there are at least some strongholds of justice that work left for the former to approach - unless too much damage is already done or if any repair will completely redundant. At least society-at-large gains cognizance of these things and grows to take steps to get rid of them.

Now if you are the former, and you are victimised, here's a solution for you. The thumb rule: if the guy ran you over, he doesn't care for justice. If he needed to run over you for something you had/have, you can pull the plug on his act by not being available. If he has already used you enough and action will be useless, you can show someone he has used how to pull the plug on him.

The catch

You have smaller more important existential affairs that need taking care off. You need to survive the moment before you can use it. The tragedy is that, by then, it ends and this cycle carries on for each moment thereon.

In the light of the monumental tragedies of injustice to you, your existence is primary. Once you realise the effort that will make it easier and not a choice inbetween the two, you'd think again.

That's the trap of thinking he's got you into. So when you eventually raise your hand in protest, it becomes a token protest.

The solution:

Pull the rug under him. Which rug you ask? You. Do it once. You'd start realising he needs you and your cooperation quietly - which also means a happy you so that there always remains a rug under him. If he can't have you happy, he'll have you bound and tied. That's when you realise why he needs you so much. He can't steal what he has from you. He needs you to constantly give it to him, over and over again. That's when you should just stop doing it. He will threaten you, as always, but you know better. The maximum of a dozen more threats and he'd be forced to let you call the shots. He needs you more than you actually fear him. Like the classic case of the king who rules a nation of giants with an iron hand until of course the giants realise they always were bigger than him.

There's a cycle prevalent that the Universe runs on. He just tries to circumvent the cycle. He can't, unless you allow him to. You hold the power against your abuse. Trust the cycle to disfunction when abused. Play it cool, as much as you want him to succumb.

Let the ants remain up his pants and away from yours. Take away your fire from his belly. Trust the circle. Leave him to the ants.

Friday, February 10, 2012

The Fire, The Pin, Everything Else Around It And Identity Crisis

There was once a fire brewed on a roadside. A fire that brewed by itself. It didn't need a fan for flames. It just brew and everything (it and around it) was happy and gay.

There was once a pin which had its place on a chair. It knew not of its existence except that it existed. Everything else around it knew it was a pin that poked and everybody generally lived happily ever after.

Now both the fire, the pin and everything else around these two things existed perfectly harmoniously and they became what they have become so far together - like three worlds in one that came to be, together, created together. Everything around it knew that the pin poked and the fire burnt and the fire didn't ignite anymore than it already was ignited nor did the pin surprise people with a poke when it felt like. The fire and the pin were incapable of it. They were an integral part of the tolerant system that included everything else around them. They were the story they were becoming - their own story that they were becoming.

This process did not undermine them (their identity or integrity) and they weren't supposed to pre-define it. They couldn't possibly and, if they did it, would defeat the whole purpose. The harmony was one that existed always, was integral and made to exist as such. Perfect, round and whole.

But against reason of natural cause and effect, the pin and the fire gained further understanding of themselves and became haughty. The pin realised it was poky, it could only be poky and that it must poke, proactively if necessary. It realised its identity. So did the fire, realising it burns. The only two things to be mentioned here otherwise is that this development was not against natural reason of cause and effect. It was a shot to the head of the difference with everything else around (something that was bound to happen over time with observation) and a knee-jerk reaction to the limitations of that understanding, thereby inspiring an illusionary desperate identity crisis.

This was an example. In India, we have many pins and fires that have gained an isolated illusionary identity from such a limited understanding. They refuse to understand the cycle between the two and the harmony these things always existed with. They refuse to understand that society is a work in progress and, if they jump the process, there will be no more formulation of a better society. They want to stop the cycle when their insecure illusion of a losing identity gets too much to explain. They'd rather be a fundamentalist or fanatic of religion or ideology demanding that no sentiments be hurt, at any cost.

They will demand that if they do (theirs or any other's whom they think are as sensitive as them), such things must be banned, burned and abolished. They forget that as much as they (sometimes search and) prick, their realisation has made them pricky. Their fire has left them with pent up heat to steam off, as much as they seek to seek out and burn. It's not natural justice to encourage such insensitive people to run a country. They judge people intentions by the instability of their own illusionary identities.

They don't understand that identity can never be lost. Man cannot be identitiless. It is simply not possible. If it can, it is not identity that is lost. We need to understand what identity really is. An identity is one that works right now, has worked for ages and is infallible. At all points in time, it should ideally be one that works. Not something you put up on a shelf for posterity. It must be something that is alive and which is being preserved in your life with tangibles that make it worth more than old traditions up on a shelf.

It will be something that serves a clear and present use to life at the present time. Beyond a culture that is how many ever thousand years old or a language that is only when it is pure, it's a way of life that consists of those things as long as they run and more. It's mannerisms, values and traditions that have made you over the years. And if any of those are fallible, they don't deserve to be termed culture - at least till they turn out to be. They are surely not worth dying and killing for. If they are, their use will define their own fate eventually. Being as insensitive as the self-realised pin or fire, casting your identity insecurities on them will really never get you far with whatever your identity really is. And playing sentiment is just the face of the fear that you're avoiding in the process.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Hi, I'm Kasab.

One India. Many colours. All blending into one. Right. Today's Republic Day and seems apt for this blogpost. I've just moved to a new city in a different state and I ride a bike of that state registration. As is procedure, I should either pay my road tax or change my bike registration. Here are things I realised about the first few statements of this post while going about it.

I realised that I (and other poor hapless people in my position) are potential Kasabs. We could potentially engineer a bomb blast, unlike most other locals. It is perfectly necessary for us prove that each of us are our father's children, many times over so that in an event that we do actually engineer that blast we may be caught at the addresses in the address proofs we furnish. And if we have none to furnish, we can get those 'done' by just about any legal professional. My other problem is that I don't actually have any permanent address proof because I never had a 'permanent address'. The addresses on various other documents were old addresses. After getting ourselves an identity, we become worth a bunch of documents that stand taller than our own heights.

The reason I had to get my bike registration done is this small little thing called road tax. Assumably, they build the roads are built and maintained with that money. So I have no right to be driving around roads we don't pay for, unless of course you're passing through only for a small while and you have got your No Objection Certificate which allows you do that for the period it stipulates.

You'd only have to see the expression on the face of a cop once he sees a non-state registration bike and stops it to know what I'm saying now. The eager look through his Ray Ban sunglasses is inexplicable, probably because of the opportunity to buy a Ray Ban for his wife I suppose. We are officially strangers in a strange land where it was clearly suspicious to be so. We were more likely to do something unlawful and have to be pre-checked with bias for any possible future action of ours unlike all other people. That seemed to justify the tone of the actions, if not the actions themselves.

While my respect is for the law, the questions are begged to be asked. Why is it that I am approached like a criminal? When does the innocent till proven guilty equation change for special people? If I am an Indian belonging to India and its increasing number of states, why is it a crime to take my Indian bike on Indian roads and celebrate the Indian life whether I'm from your state or mine? Why do I have to prove among most important things that I am my father's son and that I actually exist? Thank God that I don't have to prove that my father is the son of his dad.

While you may beg to defend the "law", I must question where it comes from and what it achieves. It's one thing to furnish what you have. You cannot not stay at the house you are staying at. Or does the Govt. endorse the growing real estate boom so that you have one? You can only be the son of your father and of no one else. Just because a document is 'official', it needn't be right. What you furnish should be what you have and not what you can create - the point being it should reflect information that is present, true and correct. You don't need to create it.

The bottomline: Why is it that one is assumed to be a criminal? Where does that assumption end? How unsingleminded that does make my diverse, colourful and uniquely different nation now?