The choice to be.

The other day I happened to notice the matrimonial page in the newspaper in a different light. We all know that matrimonials are always based on caste and religion. The community is given in bold letters and everything else is secondary. What I observed was that this neat little package of information presented the person as a product ready to be marketed. It was a buyer seller column. With specifics ranging from caste, age and profession to requirements such as the girl should be fair, sweet and a vegetarian. I found even an absurdity where the guy was a divorcee and it was ‘mutual consent, fault not his’. It makes me wonder two things. Firstly, if we as a society give undue importance to marriage, especially as a social contract and secondly, if we are increasingly becoming resigned to the idea that marriage and family are necessities that we have to just endure, rather than want.

Let us consider the dynamics of this system. When it comes to marriage, which is an establishment to propagate the species without a fight for the female, we are still primal. Propagation of species being a collective effort, we refuse to move beyond to the point where reproduction is an individual choice. This institution also objectifies a woman. Essentially in a context where marriage is arranged, it is the leasing out of the woman’s womb that is the primary factor. In this regard, the woman seldom gets a choice. The womb being leased to the man, the progeny also becomes his property. Thus, whether material or biological, ownership is always the man’s claim. This distortion initiates other societal norms. The familial hierarchy is embedded into a unit and woven through the social fabric.

But, has it always been so? Somewhere along the line of evolution, woman’s duties got side tracked into family and reproduction. The man, who had to protect her, became the power holder, the care taker and the decision maker. As this social evolution went on, the set up of marriage was hardly questioned. There had to be families to avoid the clash for women, there had to be species propagation. But as time went by, this collective began to be opposed by the individualistic. As with any case, the moment a hierarchy is questioned or the whim of the majority is opposed, the system locks down on the heretics. The individual is not allowed to question it.

Though individual freedom to choose is somewhat more in the present context, we do not question the society for an entirely different set of reasons. With the changing socio economic landscape, man has become more material oriented. Priorities have changed from house, family and relationships to money and status. We find that the matrimonial ads we see everyday is anything but the choice of the person concerned. We are now ignorant of both the world and ourselves, by making the simple choice of indifference. And this indifference makes family life harder. If earlier, reasons for conflict were few, now they are diversifying. And since time is less, people put less effort into their relationships and end up either completely disgruntled or apathetic to their selves. It reflects on every sphere of their activity. On the other hand, two people who in the first place came together by choice will put more effort because they know how much they mean to each other. So, naturally, it seems wrong that we as a society deny the right to a person to find a mate of his choice rather than being assigned to someone. The society as a whole can function better if presented a situation where a person has the right to choose his partner and whether or not to be a parent. It puts lesser pressure on the person and gives more chances to channel his energy creatively. After all, like Oscar Wilde said, ‘Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.’

GODDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went to a temple today. Now, you may ask me what is so special in that. And I would say that I’m not a believer. I haven’t been to a temple in years. Then the ultimate question. Why did I go? Well, it is my cousin who made me go. My little cousin for whom I’m much more than a sister. It was his birthday today and last week he had asked me whether I would take him to the nearby Hanuman temple. And I said yes. It was not because I wanted to go, but I was curious how he behaves in a temple. And he behaved like any other pious child who thinks that god watches over him and he doesn’t have to be responsible for anything. I asked him why he wanted me to go with him. He said just because he wanted me to. And I wonder, how can I get him to think? He does think. He asked me twice if there is god (once when he was three), as though his tiny brain tells him there is not. His explanation was that people tell him there are no ghosts. So, if evil doesn't exist, how can good exist? Isn't that against reason? I told him that love was god( that was the best i could do when he was three). He wasn't convinced because his heart wants to believe. And sometimes when human heart wants to believe something, it refuses to let the mind focus. This incident made me go back to my childhood days. I was never a true believer. From when I could remember, I was an agnostic. I would continuously question the validity of faith and this entity we so fearfully worship. My journey to atheism was never easy. It was wrought with dynamic stages which sought to tie me down to faith. At one stage I was forced to imitate piety for the sake of my sanity. It was like poison which you choose to inhale. Consuming the whole of you slowly and not letting go. So, when I realized that I shouldn’t have let my mind slide, whatever be the reason for my weakness, I decided to pump out the poison. I still find it hard when it comes to doing certain things. But, yes, I faced my fears. I told myself that my destiny is what I make, what I choose. It is not pre determined. Now, let me assure you I believe in pre determinism, but not in the way that faith pictures it. But, the problem I faced when I deviated from faith was something far worse than I had imagined. I had always thought that not believing does not make a difference to the person. But it did. Now since I had no one to turn to, no higher power which would protect me, I had a choice to make. I could either turn a blind eye and return to faith which is what a friend of mine did (she told me she knows god doesn’t exist, but she needs someone to rely on), or I could choose to continue to be a non believer knowing that I’m the master of my soul and so I need to get my act together, always, without waiting for god to throw down a rope to get me out of the ditch. Obviously I chose the latter. It was bliss. My destiny is mine to write. There is no fate that I can’t control. There are only choices. Every choice I make triggers an event. This awareness is far above faith. The faith that I don’t have to think. Or that I don’t have to worry about future. Now, I fear for my cousin. What is he being pushed into? A labyrinth of faith and belief with no cognitive understanding. No thought. I try to tell him not to believe too much without getting to an age where he could read. Nowadays i find it harder and harder to get him to think about god because the social facilitation of mind numbing is strong. I’m not saying I want him not to believe. But I want him to be given the choice to debate. To be given the choice to reject or accept the hypotheses of god by a valid methodology. From what I have seen though, there is nothing such as skeptical truth in faith. Either you believe or you don’t. Today, his brother told me to at least put the vermilion or pretend like I’m praying. By choosing not to pray, am I sinning? I asked him later whether the sky fell down because I didn’t pray. My only hope when I said those words was that nothing bad happens then and there. For, if such an incident were to occur, no question that I’ll have to hear… see I told you so. Such is the power of blind faith. Such is the power of the fear of unknown.

Twisting a Thought

If I can take a thought,
And twist it,
Can I broil into a calamity of notions,
The simple boredom,
Of the linearity
And predictability?

Can it be churned,
To a heap of ideas,
Gasping to spring forth,
From my mind to yours?

Will you love them?
My heresy,
Semichaos of ideas,
Disarrays,
Fretting for the spaces,
Allotted,
Allocated.

Alone

I sit alone,
With this entwining darkness,
So deep hidden,
With no recognition.

I walk alone,
With the absence of the mist,
To cover the shaky legs,
Entrenched in life!

I sleep alone,
With no regrets,
My soul at bliss,
Swimming in peace!

And yet,
When I wake up,
I see the faces,
I hear the voices,
No longer alone am I,
But together on the road!

on woman part 1

So, yes, I muse again. This time I’m going to extrapolate me into society. Not as a person, but as a woman. I wondered today what is the deepest issue I’ve faced as a woman and I realized that it was simply… being me. Its not that I’m not allowed to do that. But, ironically what I thought was freedom was continuously holding me back. As a woman I’ve had to reckon many forces. The immediate environment which molded me most, the broader universe which needs me in various ways, the intellectual and emotional expectations of loved ones and of course my conflicts. A very health balance of all these has been very hard to obtain. At first, I thought I had to shun society to be me. But as I evolved, I came to realize it is not society I should shun, but rather the factors which could impede my growth. As a result of this, I found that the broader universe needed me as much as I needed it. Then there were the intellectual expectations. At one stage of my life, I was entirely focused on how to be the good everything to everyone that I lost focus on myself. And as I found myself again, I begin to wonder how an ordinary woman who is not even aware of this balancing act responds to both the internal as well as external stimuli. From when she is born, she is brought up with certain duties and expectations. When her parents ‘entrust’ her with a man, he has certain expectations. So, in this tussle, it is only natural that she forgets two very important points. How to be herself and how to fulfill her potential and duties to the wider world. Come on, if we were here just as the cosmic firewood towards heat death of the universe and these brains useless, why don’t we commit mass suicide? I believe that though we aren’t born with a predefined purpose to serve god, we choose to serve ourselves. That’s the pinnacle of evolution. These brains which have developed over these millions of years, they aren’t just there to pump out electro chemical signals which serve no use to the world. But anyway, that’s not the point here. (You know I digress when I muse.) The point here is that one half of the population is denied this choice. A choice by which we can be much more than what we even choose to be, a choice by which the world becomes more balanced in all the senses. Alright so fine, we are denied the choice. But what if one day she became aware of that choice? What is the role of the forces then? How can she balance herself? And what is the reference point? Let’s marinate in the questions for a while. Because I need to find those answers too.

on political inheritance of this world

Have you ever gotten that feeling? Where you take the newspaper in the morning and you have an overwhelming desire to kill someone. Anyone who thinks contrary to your ideology. I think I’d have killed Modi or Bush hundred times over. Or even our beloved Prime minister. But, I can’t in real, can I? Now, it is not the question of can I or should I, but that of why I should not. I should not because that is not the answer. The same reason why Rang De Basanti is an utter idiotic film in my view. It introduces you to certain problems and the solution is taking the life of a perpetrator. Somehow, it stops us from pondering why people are so. Who elects these leaders? We, the people. Yes, I’m sickened by what we have become and I desperately want to change it. But, who am I? My patrician upbringing has its own limitations. I can type up and post my thoughts on a blog. But the question is whether or not if I’m ready to stop getting just frustrated and actually do something outside my comfort zone. Yes, I know, I’m becoming deafeningly incoherent. But, bear with me. Am I ready to step up to the role I never was brought up to take, but I know in my heart that I have to? This is not a Tata tea commercial, with the guy telling us to wake up, vote, stop corruption. This is about me and several others like me who are awake, vote for the best of the worst and still get an itching feeling that what we do is not enough. I want to kill so many people. But, I shouldn’t because from a drop of blood, a thousand new will spawn. The ideal is to not spill that drop but rather to eliminate the need for spilling. Sometimes I feel that the central problem of humanity is that we have not evolved as much as we make it out to be. We haven’t out grown the primate phase where we had to use physical prowess than the mind. For everything the answer is some kind of force. We push and we persuade and we snatch. Then we blame everything on the weaker side. Ever wonder why there is a conflict? It is such a silly thing to do. I grew up thinking that from space we could see that India actually had the geopolitical boundaries. I thought it was an isolated unit. I could never understand why people would make such boundaries. What was the need? How can we own something that is not ours? If it is ours, why don’t we take proper care of it? I still can’t comprehend why this demarcation is there. This idea is reinforced by anthropology that humans migrated from Africa and developed into different races. History tells us that we never inherited the regions. (Fascists are so lucky they are blind as otherwise this disillusionment would’ve been their end.) Then why should migration be political? That’s the first reason for terrorism. Make the natural resources in any corner of the world available to anybody and the world becomes more egalitarian. Not exactly talking about globalization here. What happens when climate changes happen (natural, not human induced, that is an entirely different topic) and whole populations have to shift? Should they be taxed or be refugees because they happened to live in a particular region? I didn’t inherit my belongings from my parents, because it was never theirs. I didn’t inherit my education. It should be my right, not something that is exclusive to me because I was born into a family with the means to educate me. My only inheritance is my genes. And partly whatever life has taught me. If anything, I should say that I inherited the whole world and all its problems. Reminds me of something my dear Calvin said to Hobbes “ Can I refuse to inherit the world?’. Hobbes replies ‘I’m afraid its too late.’ Its too late. I’ve inherited. So I’ve to deal with it.

on scientific responsibility and politics

Mr Jairam Ramesh, our beloved Minister commented day before yesterday that "Scientists should not display arrogance while discussing the issue. I am trying to find a middle path, which means (between) anti-democratic nature of NGOs and arrogance of scientists,".

What I cannot understand here is that why scientists need to be humble when they are dealing with brazen politicians and diplomats who enjoy power to manipulate whatever outcome be there. I cannot understand why is that only scientists need to be modest. If a politician can tell an angry protestor that he needs mental help, a scientist can equally be abrasive, especially when in a scenario where science is being buried deep in commercialization and its economic and political impacts ignored. What science does to this world is unique. Science puts the chaos in perspective. It gives a direction for the future policies of the entire world. But, instead of honouring that commitment and taking into consideration whatever evidence science has to offer for or against an issue, in this case the introduction of Bt Brinjal into Indian agricultural machinery, we bind it inside the four walls of diplomacy and politeness. How dare you, Sir? How dare you insult the intelligence of another person because he didn’t agree with you? The scientific community often comes into criticism for its conclusions. For eg, consider the IPCC controversy over the Himalayan glaciers. Fine, they made a mistake. Instead of letting it slip, we politicize it. We say that, see… there is no problem now; our fields would be fine for ten more years. Of course, ultimately it is the head ache of the Government then, is it not? The current policy makers would be dead by then. The current political system to be blamed. Does anyone at all care about the near billion people who would find themselves pushed into oblivion? The masses make you, dear Sir. But you don’t consider the masses. That is the irony. Anyway, let us come back to the topic instead of making it another one of my random ramblings. If we, as a world do not utilise science for its merits, what is the difference between us and the lower beings? We use science for our convenience. Someone invented wheel… wonderful, now transportation is easy. Faraday told us how to channel electricity. Good, now we can enter modernity. Becquerel discovers radioactivity and suddenly we are on the track to nuclear energy. All is fine and good. But, what about the responsibility that we attribute to science? Where was that responsibility when Oppenheimer conceived the atomic bomb? Where was that responsibility when defense technology became a more important field than agricultural research? Is it science alone that is responsible? Or is it the raw human urge for power and war? And when a scientist or a group of scientists tells us something is wrong, do we ignore or heed them? When they do say something is wrong, they do it because this responsibility that we conveniently attribute to them is part of their selves. Instead of breeding more scientists who say no to every such issue (I believe science ought to say more nos than yeses when it comes to political policies. Thereby we invoke a more mature debate of why and why not.), we conform them to the existing framework of manipulation and ‘modesty’. It goes against everything science stands for. What we are doing is cultivating a brand of Galileos who relinquish the facts and bow down to the system. Naturally, it makes me wonder whether or not democracy as we see now has become another medieval church.

As for the NGO comment, dear sir, they exist because ‘GOs’ are not doing their jobs.

on being alive. part 1

What makes us alive? Or, to be more precise, what keeps us alive? Is it the heart beating or the timeless flow ever since time immemorial of the dark fluid, or the soul that we spurn out? What makes us alive? No, I am not talking about science or the philosophy of life? Rather the motivation of this meager existence. It is different- the reason I mean. It is different for each and every one of us. If you ask yourself what keeps you alive, for what you live and why, the answers, if they are found within themselves will be quite different from what you obtain from a pedestrian down the road, or the motorist parked next to you in a traffic jam. If you ask me why I live, the answer is that I do not know why- not yet at least! Then again, the purpose of this life, what is it? To carry out our carefully planned duties, chalked out in the eternal wheel of life? Look around, we are all different. The white and the black, the slim and the fat, the world full of contradictions and opposites, and yet somehow we merge. We merge into this cosmic balance as a single entity called Homo sapiens and if a rather broader perspective be taken, as life. Weird, isn’t it? Yes, weird. And to some degree, truly magnificent.

I always thought the purpose of life, was life itself, to live that is. Until of course, the time came, when I couldn’t differentiate between life and no life, or accurately speaking, to pinpoint the meaning of life. Then again, somewhere along the nuances of the day, I found out that, it is not life that matters in the end, but, what kept us alive. True, the world sees how we lived. But, the senses perceive only what we want to perceive, sifting out the entire rubbish, that doesn’t concern our questions or our self. So naturally, there should be something that drives us on, something that makes us get every dawn, put on this laborious design of routine, have the social functioning that we designed ourselves to have, and at the end of the day, to look back and weigh the odds and ends, solve all the tricky dilemmas, go to sleep, awaiting the next dawn. Yes, of course, there are times, when we revolt at the idea of tomorrow, the shallow fear of future hanging along a thread. And yet, we do get through time, again and again, sometimes crawling painfully, sometimes humming the happy tunes, and sometimes reaching out towards hope. Is it love? Perhaps! Yes, perhaps it is love that winds the key of this poor jack in the box game. Is it love? Is it? It is love. Love for something, not hatred, hatred is love, love for the rival of what we hate.

the burning fire

I watched the fire burn,
I watched the fire burn,
The last embers of my love,
Consumed in unending hate.

His love gone,
His presence away,
The fire cleansed my soul,
My heart and my essence.

The eternal damnation
Of untrue love,
The ephemeral lust
And the transient passion.

I watched the fire burn,
Dancing to my heartbeat,
I watched with joy,
The divine closure.

I feel cleansed,
His defiling sense,
No more on me.
The monstrosity of betrayal,
Arrogance of apathy,
I no more tolerate.

Free and freer,
Every moment I feel,
Yes, regret I do,
Not for loving him,
But for loving him.
But for loving him.

The future is mine,
Only mine,
I seek nothing but truth,
The truth in me.
My truth,
It is me, truth is me!
No longer him!
No longer him!