Kya hai bharosa aashiq dil ka, aur kisi pe yeh aa jaaye....

Readers of this blog who have found enough shreds of interest by which to hang on to it over the last two or so years that it has been around, may have got the impression that I don't particularly favour the rule of reciprocity in matters of love, kindness, sensitivity and such. All things nice, if you please. My policy is largely one of - I do it because I want to do it, and if you don't want to reciprocate I have absolutely no right to ask you to. I mean, it's the only rational way to be isn't it? We do what we want, the other does what he/she wants and sure it would be nice for the others' wants to be the same as our want but when it isn't so it really is arrogant for us to demand that it be so. No?

The sentiment of 'iloveyouwithallmyheartandsoul' is a very common theme of songs from Hindi films (Though this post is more about songs from the 50s, 60s and 70s, it could very well apply today). Slightly less pervasive is the expression , in varying shapes and sizes, of the sentiment 'howniceitwouldbeifyoucouldlovemetoo'. Next comes the 'iknowyoushallneverloveme' which at times is tied to the preceding sentiment by threads of despair and futility. This third sentiment is in most cases also accompanied by the helpless 'butishallcontinuetoloveandlongforyou'.

Moving, heart wrenchingly beautiful songs of love-filled despair. I am in no way mocking them. No sir. I like to listen to them, love them, and live them. Read the first paragraph and be convinced that I swear by such sentiments!

Be that as it may, there come along certain songs bearing sentiments that are quite the opposite. Unlike the above-mentioned variety that seep naturally into your skin and become a part of your existence, the latter variety of songs brazenly float in through the front door on a magic carpet of melodies and you only realise you let them in after you have spent a good second or two in awe of their presence. Much like guests who annoy us by walking in uninvited but do so bearing wonderful presents to placate us, thereby leaving us doubtful about whether to proceed with our original decision to throw them right out, with these songs, we might be angry with them for upsetting the equilibrium of our unhappybutcontentintheirunhappiness hearts, but find we cannot do anything about it because a part of us is taken in by the novelty of their message and wants to hear more.

For those unable to decipher my very unambiguous description ( :-p ) allow me to clarify what songs and sentiments I mean.

The songs I find refreshing and belonging to the second category as described above don't care for supplication and unrequited love. They mean business. Love is a two way street, and I certainly don't intend to walk up and down it by myself. It is conditional, reciprocal, and at times, yes, vengeful.

I have recently been on a spree of appreciating such songs and so an example comes easily to mind, allowing me to illustrate. (In the following example, I am using the word "I" for the singer and "you" for the one being sung to. I am not trying to wave my fists at the reader. This is for the sake of convenience. One does not like to go on talking like this for a long time about complex matters should the other lose track of what is being said and fails to understand the point, does one?)

Song: Haseen ho tum

Lyrics: Hasrat Jaipuri

Singer: Mohd. Rafi

Film: Badtameez

"Haseen ho tum khuda nahi ho, tumhara sajda nahi karenge

Magar mohabbat mein hukm doge, to haste haste yeh jaan bhi denge"

(You are only human, albeit of the attractive kind, and that isn't enough to warrant me getting down on my knees before you. However, though I will not offer you salutations and adoration unnecessarily, if you were to reciprocate my feelings my dear there would be no limit to what I would be willing to do for your sake)

"Hamari nazron ka shukr kijiye, ki aasmaan par tumhe bithaya

Hamare dil ko duaen dijiye, ki dhadkanon mein tumhe basaya"

(Rather than engaging in self depreciation and suggesting that the you deserve much more than I can offer, I suggest that you ought to be grateful to me for having considered you worthy of my affection. What a healthy, even if slightly pompous, attitude!)

"Bulandiyon se giro ge tum bhi, agar nigahon se hum girenge"

(A subtle threat, that you will have a rather nasty fall from the pedestal on which I placed you, in the event that you judge me unfavourably)

"Hamare jaise agar hain lakhon, tumhare jaise bhi kam nahi hain

Jo khud patthar se phod le sar, woh aur honge woh hum nahi hain"

(If you think there are millions like me, allow me to remind you that you aren't one in a million either. There may be others willing to bring about their own destruction in longing for you, but I am not one of them)

I am aware of course, of how grossly inadequate my explanations in English are but, in the spirit of the song, I am not going to be overly apologetic about it. Anyone who doesn't understand Hindi should be grateful for any attempt by me to make things comprehensible :-)

I like the song because it dares to say things others songs don't, and it is grounded in unwavering self respect, self awareness and self control.

It's a perfectly healthy attitude to have if you ask me (and I know no one really asked me, but this is my blog and if I can't lend it some metaphorical elasticity then there is really no justice in the world! None!!)

All it does is remind you to be critical of your love for the one you love, to remember that you may sometimes, perhaps, in the heat of passion judge someone to be more terrific than they really are, to not feel guilty about your rage, to accept that the other does not care for your pleas, to appreciate that while they have a right to do so, you need not join them and double the blow to your feelings and finally, eventually, move the hell on.

I recommend this song to anyone who has tried to nurse a broken heart and has felt the ache and longing for that which cannot be.

You will either identify with it or you won't.

If you do, it will probably make you feel better about life and yourself.

If you do not, then just find it in yourself to appreciate this sore (but defiant) thumb of songs.

Psychotherapists are people too

I want to set the record straight and say a few things in defense of the much misunderstood profession of psychotherapy. Namely, what a psychotherapist is and is not.

What he/she is: A person who is trained to develop a capacity for undying humanness and patience in order to be able to offer a wounded other the chance to pick up the pieces of their fragmented lives within the context of an interpersonal relationship.

What he/she is not: A person who should be expected to put up with utter incompetence and disrespectful behaviour with a smile. They are trained to be patient and understanding with their clients. Not with lying, careless staff members of an organisation who have no regard for another's time. It is unfair and unwise to expect them to have tolerance for all kinds of nonsense, just because they do so with the delicate psychological selves that their clients bring before them.

If that were the case, if psychotherapists really had to take an oath of unconditional patience and understanding, then no psychotherapist would ever participate in socio-political movements to better the state of mankind, to state one example. They would be too busy being a doormat for people to walk all over, you see.

A psychotherapist has as much as of a right as the next person does to be opinionated, or get pissed off and raise their voice against incompetent staff members, government departments, or violations in human rights. Their skill lies in remaining neutral in a certain context about certain things. To illustrate with an example, just because a therapist may vociferously condemn wife beating as an act, does not mean their capacity to offer help to a wife beater, should he seek it, will be adversely affected. In fact, it demonstrates their capacity to differentiate between something that warrants a certain judgement from them and that which does not.

Just because they are meant to be patient people, does not mean they will take every damn thing that is thrown their way lying down.

And while we are on the subject, if a psychotherapist expresses disappointment at your gross incompetence in carrying out your professional duties, don't illustrate your sheer lack of discernment by equating that with disappointments experienced within the context of a therapeutic relationship between a client and his or her therapist.

Therapists and counsellors are trained to be patient with clients because of the special nature of the relationship. It is unlike any other dyad, where one has to be mindful of the many reasons why clients may disappoint the therapist or vice versa. Many of those reasons stem directly from the vulnerabilities for which therapists are there to help.

So please, next time you call a therapists' therapeutic skills to question because they didn't pat you on the back and say "aww baby, it's okay" after you made an error that could very easily have been avoided had you paid a little more attention, think about what I have said.

And don't ever, EVER, make the mistake of comparing yourself to one of their clients after behaving in the above-mentioned manner. If you do, don't be startled when they put you in your place in no uncertain terms. You asked for it.

All citizens are equal * (Conditions Apply)

(I noticed a draft of this post while labelling other posts. I had started writing it over a year ago. Recent events - involving Continental Airlines, APJ Abdul Kalam, a bunch of fools in the Indian Parliament, and a moronic blog entry on TOI - have prompted me to post it at the present time)

"...we have made many mistakes. But through all these missed opportunities and mistakes we have stoutly defended our freedom, democracy,the rule of law, liberty and equality for all citizens, and our proud civilisation and history"

P.Chidambaram in "Abject Poverty can be Eradicated": India of My Dreams.

Yes. India of your dreams is right. For if one were to actually check each of these with simple examples from daily life and reality, it ought to shock us back out of this grandiose delusion.

To save time and effort, and because the others were not what impelled me to write this post, I am going to leave them aside and focus on just one of these principles we have so "stoutly defended".

Equality for all citizens.

It is utter crap. And if we only look around, there are several examples to show that we are being lied to. To. Our. Faces.

If we were all, from A-Z, equal then I(we) wouldn't have to go the airport, for example, and read a big board that says "All persons are subject to strict security checking procedures except the following....

-The Prime Minister
-The President
-E T and C

I don't think there exists a rational explanation for why they should be exempt. On what grounds are they allowed to pass while others have to be checked and frisked?

I don't have a problem with being checked and frisked, really. The problem is the preferential treatment.

A big deal was made about Kalam being asked to go through a security check just like everyone else. Kalam being the unassuming man that he is, didn't act fussy, and co-operated. But the other ministers of India would have none of this and raised a hue and cry in the Rajya Sabha demanding that the airline apologise. The Minister for Aviation obliged, as did the airline.

Now I can think of two reasons why current MPs would get so flustered by an incident that concerns them not

1. They have fragile egos and their sense of importance and worth is governed by whether they are asked to pass through a metal detector or not. If someone who actually has some strength of character was "treated this way", what chance do they have to convince themselves that they are worth a dime?

2. They clearly want to waste time in the parliament discussing petty things like this (and what language people should talk in!), rather than discussing ways to deal with other problems that the nation is grappling with.

Rather than regarding it as an "insult to the nation" if politicians and former politicians are asked to undergo security checks, I think it will do us all a lot of good if they willingly participated. They are meant to be leaders right? Why don't they lead us through the metal detector as well then! Plus, if they do it, it might knock some sense into non-politicians who think they are VIPs because of how heavy their pockets are.

I don't think CA should have apologised. This reminds me of an incident at Bukhara, New Delhi where I overheard two foreigners request the waiter to make their kebabs less spicy. The waiter promptly told them that kebabs were spicy by nature, and would not be changed. I like the whole take-what-you-get-or-fuck-off attitude. If CA has certain security procedures to follow, it shouldn't have to apologise for them.

The guy on the TOI blog said the Kalam incident was like asking Hillary Clinton to go through a security check when she visits India. I don't think there is anything wrong with that either. It's a security check for god's sake! One should question their intentions when they vehemently oppose it, just because it causes one to wonder what they have to hide.

The last line of an article in TOI made me really angry- "There have been instances where Indian VIPs have been treated shabbily at foreign airports."

If going through security checks is "shabby treatment" then isn't it shameful and worrying that the GOI (meant to be by, of and for the people) is okay with every other citizen of India being subjected to it?

Another example, and I am sure everyone who has been through this experience will agree, is the fact that whenever a "VIP" passes by a certain area, or is about to, they have all these cops stopping regular traffic. It is the most absurd and revolting thing! To be in a car, waiting for some man/woman to drive past, and cooperate while you are effectively being told that he/she is more important than you are.

I mean, if the proud pricks have to be somewhere in such a hurry, and if they are so bloody important, they ought to have the brains enough to leave their homes a little sooner keeping in mind the time of day and traffic flow like the rest of us do.

Even if you leave aside the fact that it is absolutely shameful to pledge allegiance to principles of equality, liberty and justice for all and clearly give priority to some citizens over the others, it is a violation of democratic principles. Why should I wait for the other guy to pass? Because they tell me to. And because they will either shoot me or throw me in prison for trying to get onto a road that's supposedly meant for everyone and that the government maintains by fleecing people of their hard earned money.

It violates this alleged equality by adding a " * " and a small print.

* except for some, who are special.

More despair at our species

The world recently lost a one eyed, three legged dog named Gus to cancer. The little creature had been given the title of the "Ugliest Dog in the World" by the most confusing and mind numbingly weird species on earth- Human Beings.

He beat several other canines to win the title apparently. I mean, let's just take a look at what we're saying here and admonish ourselves. A dog competed against other dogs for the title of the world's ugliest dog.

Admit it. You haven't heard anything sillier. You and I both know that he didn't wake up one day, look in a mirror, conclude he had a fairly good chance and saunter off to sign up for the pageant.

It's a shame indeed that beauty has come to be associated in the human world by one's physical appearance.* But when we apply our own questionable standards to poor creatures of the animal kingdom, and judge them by the same, it really leaves me grasping in vacuum for something to say.

I don't know what drives human beings to act this way towards animals. Dressing them in people's clothes, making them participate in ugliness contests, getting them married to each other...

Camus once said that man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.

Is that why we can't stand the fact that there are wonderful creatures who are quite at peace with being what they are?

Is it envy that drives people to humanise animals?

I like to think so. It's much more a reflection of reality than the alternative that comes to my mind...

Pity.

*Reminds me of a poem I read recently. Allow me to share.

A young spring-tender girl

combed her joyous hair

'You are very ugly' said the mirror

But,on her lips hung

a smile of dove-secret loveliness,

for only that morning

had not the blind boy said,

"You are beautiful"?

-- Spike Milligan

Of chapatis, chauvinism and other words beginning with the same letters that I would rather not mention

Our society is composed of arrogant fools whose self confidence is derived more from their social status and nawabi than their actual worth.

A conversation that ensued at the dinner table with the family was what started off my thoughts on the subject that ended with the above conclusion.

We eat rotis here, in this part of the world. And at the dinner table usually indicate when we reach the last one so that the woman who is making them in the kitchen doesn't stack them up unnecessarily for them to become stale the next day.

A visiting relative, after indicating his saturation point as far as rotis were concerned, commented on how someone he knew (lets call him Snoot) went to dinner to someone else's home and was very offended when asked to tell how many rotis were needed at the table.

The next day, this personification of arrogance made the most rude and hurtful remark to the woman of the house.

He asked her if her husband was earning well and received his pay checks on time, because "tumhare ghar mein toh gin kar roti banti hai" (in your home, you have to count the rotis before you make them)

Of course, I do not think there is anything wrong at all in finding out beforehand, so that one doesn't waste any food, or effort in making rotis that aren't going to be consumed during the same meal. Others on the table also agreed, but El Padre said that while he didn't think it was wrong, he understood the perspective of the gentleman described above. He said that in north India, it isn't considered socially appropriate to ask how many rotis one will have.

Why?

His logic is that if you ask someone if they will have more rotis, they will not say no even if they wanted more.

Now, I think it all depends on the manner in which the question is asked.

Asking someone, "aap roti toh nahi lenge na" (you wont have any more will you?) isnt right, as one doesn't find it comfortable to respond to a negative assumption with an affirmation.

Asking someone "aap roti toh aur lenge" (you will have one more, wont you) is fine, as it assumes that the person will, establishes that you will very much like him to have more, and are only asking to confirm so that you don't burden him with the already prepared roti if he doesn't want one.

Clearly, the Snoot wasn't making his sick and despicable remark because he felt pressured to say no when he wanted to say yes. He clearly thought it was beneath him to mention that he wanted to have 2-3-4 or 18 more rotis, because it was beneath him to have to answer a question of this nature. Nawabs probably didn't do that. The idea being that your social status is determined by the fact that you can afford to waste a few rotis and allow the food to spill over even if it isnt required, because you are well off enough to be able to spare a few extra grains of wheat.

What a shame. And what a sad person he is, if he has to prove his superiority in this manner- by downgrading the status of another. Of course, without giving sufficient regard to the fact that this man may have been an acquaintance of my visiting relative, I made my views about his behaviour quite clear.

Also, how come no one objects to this when one is paying for the rotis out of their own pockets at a restaurant? Do we not indicate to the waiter, whether more bread is needed? Or do we, Mr Snoot, wait for him to bring a basketful before us, and charge us for it?

So is it a question of disregard for an other's effort and money, whereas one holds one's own dear?

I am puzzled by how one's ego can be deflated by this most simple and non controversial question. How is it that one can feel offended when asked about one's dietary requirements?

All this is also, in my humble opinion, related in a subtle way to patriarchal values and customs.

How?

You think the women who cook for themselves and are last to eat keep going, without deciding in advance about which will be the last roti?

Men who take offence to such trivial things, are those men, who in a patriarchal set up, eat first, and feel rather king-like when the women serve them*. They probably feel that they needn't worry about these petty things, because even if the rotis are extra and piling up, the women who eat after they are done will happily consume them.

Like nawabs, whose slaves would take of the remains after they are done.

(*Seriously. Such men make me sick. They wouldn't even lift a finger to pick a slice of cucumber off the salad plate and expect their wives, daughters and daughter in laws to scurry about, fussing over them.)

An omen

There are storms every day these days. They come at night usually. Almost always at night. And it comes suddenly, with a gust of wind carrying dust, as if to cover everything that crosses its path with it. Trees, even large ones that are supposed to be strong, sway unsteadily from side to side as if losing control. Windows and doors begin doing a dangerous dance, opening and closing shut with a crash. The ones that have already been closed by the wise ones who anticipated the forthcoming storm and thought of securing themselves from it, are made more aware of the presence they tried to keep out, by the gentle but firm beating of the wind against the glass. The latter trembles and it's vibrations sound like they are saying "How long will you hide? I will keep coming for you, again and again. And some day I will get you."

It is unnerving to be caught in moments like this. This city has not seen storms of this nature at this time of year, and with such frequency in as long as the mind can remember. It is new. It is a sign of things changing. The world is changing.

It is unnerving. But it is not unpleasant.

It feels like an indication of some kind. A communication coming our way.

Perhaps the end of the human race is near.

Further proof of our sorry lives

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7263782.stm

As if wasn't tragic enough that human beings have to go through this ritual of marriage, now we inflict this torture on animals as well. Rather than learning their freedom loving, non binding ways of existence, here we are doing the mind-numbingly stupid thing- making them more like us.

Next thing you know, they'll go to court asking for divorce on behalf of the poor creatures, because the monkeys won't stop sleeping around with multiple mates.

I really don't understand why we can't mind our own sad little business.

Whatever the hell that is.

Complaints- Part Two

UEFA champions league.

Matchday 2 of knockout round, first leg.

AC Milan Vs. Arsenal.

Telecast on Zee Sports again!

All the swear words, used in all possible permutations and combinations, targetting all the family members of the addressee, in all the languages in the world would not suffice to capture my feelings for the television channel controllers at this moment.

Those who do not understand what this is about, see Complaints-Part One

Complaints- Part One

Being a fan of el futbol, one has to deal with the difficulties of not living in a football loving country that shows twenty sports channels covering all the matches being played on a given night.

UEFA Champions league resumed last night- Knock Out round.

And, first thing I did in the morning, was to open the newspaper early in the morning with trepidation, only to find my worst fears confirmed.

The Real Madrid Vs. AS Roma game was being telecast on Zee Sports.

Problem? I don't get Zee Sports!

I get Zee Studio, Zee Cafe, Zee Cinema, Zee TV, and Zee Music but no Zee Sports.

So I was generally complaining to TQ about how pitiable my condition was etc. and had just finished a dramatic monologue along the lines of "Oh its not like I am asking for too much! Zee sports is an Indian channel! Its not like I want to watch Sky Sports 1 and 2! Its not like I am making demands for Real Madrid's 24X7 channel, which btw shows in NEPAL but not in India!..."

When I was interrupted by her question-
"What would you give in order to be able to watch Real Madrid 24X7?"

My answer-

"Uhhh...like 100 bucks a month?"

Her expression was priceless! Given my anguished outburst a few moments ago, she said she expected me to say something like "My right arm"

But the truth is, as much as I love football and Real Madrid, there aren't very many things I would give up my right arm for.

She then asked me to name ONE thing I would give up my right arm for.

I grinned and said there was one thing-
I would give up my right arm if someone would assure me that the world would change to fit my Utopian ideal- no need to work to earn your bread, no attachments, no relationships, lots of passion, liberty, freedom to just 'be' without having to be someone or some thing, world where marriages aren't 'something to be done', a world where having babies isn't 'something to be done'...

You get the drift.

Couldn't come up with any other thing worth my right arm.

P.S. I was complaining to a psychoanalyst and to TQ about how the greatest tragedy was that you had to earn your bread and butter. Because most admissions that tell you interesting things about a person start with "If I didn't have to work to earn my bread and butter..."

Why?! Why do we have to work to earn bread and butter! I don't even like bread that much! Sob Sob

P.P.S- I read the minute by minute commentary on uefa.com. Real Madrid lost yesterday. 2-1. I blame it on my being unable to watch the match. Sports is the only thing I get superstitious about.

We need a speaker's corner in New Delhi.

I think I do a decent job of not sugar coating things most of the time, but much remains to be done.

Anyway, Nawaz Sharif is an inspiration for the moment. He has just stated that Pervez Musharraf has "lost his mental balance".

I like the honesty. Frankly, thats what we need. We need people to call a spade a spade, whether the spade in question is a corrupt theif of a politician, a government that is clearly failing miserably at implementing its policies, or just a friend who needs a reality check.

Impassioned by what Nawaz Sharif has roused in me, I would also like to state that Pratibha Patil being the first woman president of India is hardly something to be proud of! So stop saying it! Stop making it out to be a big deal.

As a woman, when I hear that it makes me angry.

Imagine her being introduced to the world for the first time-

"Ladies and Gentlemen! Introducing! For the first time ever! Leader of over a billion! Supreme Commandant of the Armed Forces of the Republic of India! A shining example of She Shakti! The Hon'ble President of India- Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil!"

I can just picture a large crowd, standing up a little more with every word of the presenter, in spine tingling anticipation.

And then when she trots onto the stage, I can also imagine the applause of thousands reduced to a few hesitant claps.

It's like we've been waiting for so long, finally we have a woman in...cough cough...power, and she is the best we could do??

Doesn't speak highly of women to be associated with a little rag, sapped of all energy and dynamism.

Personally, I would like to see some life.

Josh, if you please.

Throw me in jail, but that's how I really feel.



P.S. E-mail sent to my mother, vino, and a journalist friend from Tehelka (I was hoping this third one would pitch the idea to Tarun Tejpal) few days ago:-

"There should be a speaker's corner in delhi, at India Gate or some such central place so that people can go there and hurl abuses at the government, exposing the hollow and termite eaten core of its officials.

it's a shame that fear of humiliation is the main guiding force of action. there should be a way to make use of that. tedi ungli se ghee nikaalne ka prabandh hona chahiye!"

Jai Hind!

Will the vulgarity never end?

It's getting out of hand I tell you! Even if I come to terms with the insane amount of affection and love being showered on Dhoni & Co. these days, I will never be at peace with the benefits they are getting (monetary and non monetary) because of this T-20 win. It is just vulgar if you ask me. Everyone has lost their marbles and are in such a frenzy to give that they can't stop- Like going downhill in a car, and not being able to hit the brakes. Apart from the hikes in their contracts, each player seems to be getting rewarded amounts ranging from Rs. 3 Lakh - 21 Lakh by their respective State governments* (!!!) And, what's with the free air travel for five years??? I know a hundred people who are more deserving of that but cannot afford it! (Of course, I am including myself as well. It's called "Beheti Ganga mein haath dhona" - If the holy water is flowing anyway, I may as well dip my hands into it)

Now celebrity-hood is something in which irony reveals itself rather splendidly. Once you have enough money to pay for a few luxuries, you get those luxuries free of charge! I am against this on principle. It just isn't fair at all. And makes no sense.

Now I know and you know that the government can definitely make better use of all this money. I applaud the Supreme Court for its recent comment directed towards the government when the former noted a decline of 30% in the centralisation of elementary education for kids over the years, while considering the finances required to make adjustments to make room demanded by the reservation law - "What is more important? Elementary education for children or quota system?"

*This is hilarious. Robin Utthappa is getting 5 Lakh from Karnataka Government, and 3 Lakh from Kerala government because ....his mother was born in Kozhikode!!! Why don't we just trace the entire lineage and find several other states that apparently have all this money to spare? Surely grandparents are also important aren't they?

The "responsible" Indian media

The Indian media has become a pro at asking the most redundant and stupid questions. Two instances come to mind-

First, when Pratibha Patil was nominated as the UPA presidential candidate out of the blue, the question being asked by the news channels was "Is India ready for a female president?". I would like to know what the question means. What sort of answer does it warrant? Are we supposed to roll up our sleeves and say, "yeah...bring it on baby, we're ready for you" or stutter and fumble and mumble "uh...umm...I dunno...uh ..uh...I'm not sure..", ask for a few days/months/years to prepare ourselves, after which we will take a deep breath and say "Okay, now we're ready!" What does it mean when they ask us whether we're prepared. How does one prepare oneself for a woman president?

The whole emphasis on her being a woman itself annoys me greatly. I mean, her name has been nominated and no one has any idea about her credentials or what she was doing for a living till now. But no, all that is not important. All the news was about her being a woman. I have to be honest. I keep away from politics largely. Consequently, I don't know many politicians. So I didn't know who she was. I had to Google for more information on the woman who would possibly become the president of the country of which I am a citizen. The least that the news channels could have done was to have "quick facts about PP's life" running on the bottom of the screen when they were debating the goodness of fit between a woman, a president and the nation's state of preparedness for the two of them put together.

The other really idiotic discussion that a leading news channel- I think it was NDTV- was having was sparked by the kidnapping and murder of a young boy by some people he came in contact with through a social networking site on the Internet. The big question was "do social networking sites need greater safeguards"? Fantastic. This is another example of how human beings create something and then give it more power than their own rational thought- for other examples refer to social customs and practices. I am talking of machines, inanimate objects created by man, to be used the way man chooses to, their existence and functionality completely dependant on man.

Questions like "is the Internet dangerous" or "is TV a bad influence" are shockingly moronic! There is no doubt that what happened to the young man was very very unfortunate. But its not the social networking sites that need safeguards. It is the brain of the user that needs safeguards. What can the website possibly do to prevent you from befriending strange people? Wait...why the hell should the website take responsibility for it anyway?

Oh, I just got reminded of a third instance. The whole shaktimaan controversy. If a child watches a superhero jump off a building wearing deep purple and gold coloured clothing that had a rather velvety appearance, imitates him, jumps off a building and loses his life, it really isn't the television shows fault! But there they were, scores of people protesting and asking for it to be taken off the air immediately. Why? Probably because they're afraid of being judged callous if they spoke the truth- that the only people who could be held responsible were the child's parents, or the child him or herself.

There's enough room on the street. Its the belief that is narrow.

During the month of Shrawan, the Kawarias, in their orange and yellow clothing and brightly coloured golden, silver, pink, red, green carriers filled with Ganga-jal (water from the holy Indian river) speckle the streets of New Delhi. Their walk from the Ganga, wherever they may have encountered her, usually at Haridwar, to their village is a long one, and they usually make the pilgrimage barefoot.

Yesterday, during the morning hours, waiting for the light to turn green, I was generally looking around and taking in the happenings on the busy traffic light. And I caught sight of a few Kawarias - their slim yet strong bodies supporting large water carriers, and supported by determined feet that carried them on their long journey one step at a time- walking alongside expensive cars that were transporting men and women talking on their cellphones, to the places they make their money in. The scene was an example of the peaceful co existence of the spiritual and the material, tradition and modernity.

I smiled to myself, happy to think of my country as one where we had room for God, Ganga and .... um... Goenka.

My views changed in the evening. Its hard to smile about something when that very thing is partly responsible for creating the worst traffic jam I had been in in the entire week. The Kawarias were walking the streets, so cars were stopped so as to not cause any inconvenience to them. Why didn't the traffic police intervene? Take a guess-Try to come between a man and his God and you commit blasphemy that deserves to be punished with bus burning, and stone throwing. Who wants to get involved in such jhamelas unnecessarily? If a leper with one leg eats into a few seconds of a green light, God help him from the barrage of horns and abuses he is likely to be pelted with. But religious men? No No. Shake of the head, fingers touching the ears - How can we ask them to wait on the sidewalk till traffic stops??

Well why the hell not?! If you and I can wait for the light to turn red, why can't they? I'll tell you why. Because the sad fact is, we have this need to give special treatment to something to show our respect for it. We think we might offend the Lord if we walk beside him. So we tread with caution bordering on paranoia. Don't do this or else...Don't do that or else...

It would be so much simpler to just avoid the superficiality and obligatory displays of respect that probably don't make a difference to the supreme being anyway.

Its nice to think of an India where God and man exist side by side in a khud jiyo auron ko bhi jeene do (live and let live) fashion; where there is enough space on the road for both of them to walk side by side. It is not so nice to think of an India where one has to be pushed aside to let the other pass.

One can truly appreciate the faith and resolve of another, no doubt. But only if it doesn't cause bumps and breaks in the smooth flow of one's own (way of) life.

The Dark Cloud of "Consent"

I recently attended a conference in which the surprisingly low figures quoted in the recent government study on the number of people affected by HIV in India were discussed. Last year, a study by the UNAIDS quoted the figure at 5.6 million. As per the Government survey released on July 6th 2007, the number is between 2.5 and 3.1 million. Congratulations. The figures have reduced by 50% in the span of one year.

But social activists and organizations committed to the cause are not convinced. They have several counts on which to be displeased –Allegedly, there is no transparency with respect to the details of how the study was conducted. Secondly, the sample was not a representative one- the participation of all subjects was purely voluntary.

It is this second point, which is of interest to me. Testing for HIV is entirely voluntary. That means, if I don't wish to find out if I am HIV positive, no one can make me.

I am of the opinion that it wont be a bad idea to remove this heavily loaded term- "consent"- from HIV testing. All those who have jumped out of their seats arguing freedom of choice, human rights and so on may kindly sit down and hear me out first.

Take a moment to think of why testing for AIDS is consent based. It is because of the fear of stigmatization. The sad fact is that people living with AIDS are ostracized by society, so this fear is justified. But by making testing consent based, we are in fact making the following admission – "If you do turn out to be HIV positive, we cannot assure that you will not be treated like scum. Nor can we offer sufficient support- medical or emotional (the latter being more necessary)". People present at the conference said it was "impossible" to ensure safe testing and stigma-free living in case we decided to test everyone. One woman justified consent based testing precisely on this argument – "if we carry out the test, and find out that the person has AIDS, we don't have anything to protect them from the stigma and discrimination they are likely to face." Fantastic. You deserve a pat on the back for your honesty.

All this drama about consent is a cover up. It emerges from a desire to absolve oneself of the responsibility of the mammoth task of trying to change the mindset of the majority.

There needs to be a shift in perspective. You cannot combat a widespread illness unless you know the magnitude of the problem. The focus should be on finding out more and more people who need help, and offering it to them when it can still be of help. The focus should be on removing their fear, and on ending the discrimination and stigmatization that people with AIDS face every single day (rather than reinforcing it by allowing the affected persons to hide because of a fear that, ideally, if the society were made up of decent people, would not be present at all).

The stigmatization will not end if you say, "I will not test you if you don't want to be tested. Because I understand your fear of social and personal rejection".

We can do more if we say, "Come and get tested. For your own safety and that of others. And if you test positive, I promise to stand by you and help you get through this in the best way possible."

Also, how on earth do you expect the numbers to be exact or even close to accurate if participation is consent based? What struck me was the irrationality with which consent based participation was being rejected by those people who were in support of consent based testing- "Only those people who are sure that they will not test positive will voluntarily participate". I don't know how they intended to get around this one.

Thirdly, the status given to AIDS in our country is related to sexuality. People forget that AIDS can be transmitted by non-sexual means. That's why the very suggestion of mandatory testing raises eyebrows. I have met people who say they would take offence if someone asked them to get tested. As if a judgment was being made on their charitra (character) or something! A prominent social activist asked me how I would feel if somebody asked me to get tested. I told her I wouldn't mind at all. Then she asked me if I thought little children should be tested (she asked "Little children?" in a tone of incredulous disbelief). I obviously said, "Why not?"

Why do you think AIDS is not openly talked about? In recent times, thanks to the media, awareness efforts are on the rise. But it still creates more of a stir than..say.. cancer. It is because of the million other moral and social questions that it throws up. And it is because of this distorted view that the scream of AIDS that would otherwise have woken us up is silenced.

AIDS is not a morality issue. It is a medical problem. Let's look at it that way. It would help us combat the illness as well as social issues surrounding it.

Michel Foucault warned us long ago, and told us to look for value judgments in the most innocent of places. We should start by lifting the cloud of "consent" and examining the values that lie hidden beneath it.

STOP !!!

Even if you keep aside the issue of morality and basic human conscience, the sheer stupidity of man is amazing.

Why are people having so many children? Everyone is talking about how population growth is one of the main concerns facing nearly every country today. Including those who are having those babies! Then why is it still happening? Are people in denial? Can they not see the hundreds of children forced into trafficking every year? Are they blind to the fact that there are so many children without families, waiting to be adopted? Or do they really think the construction of new schools will suffice to tackle the issue of there being absolutely no place to accommodate and educate the kids??

Sometimes I feel like taking a big red "STOP!!" sign and smashing it on the heads of the people who keep reproducing and having five or six children. Serious steps need to be taken to stop this madness.

I don’t think people realize just what is being talked about here. Its not just something to talk about at parties to pretend to sound intelligent you know. If you’re that smart, your actions should prove it.

Our planet is not going to get any bigger. If you keep having children like that, where are they going to go? Where will we put them? Doesn’t anyone realise that there is no room!?

Will the couples please understand that no one has a personal vendetta against them when they are asked to engage in a little family planning. Something needs to be done to make them understand this. Especially in the rural areas. Just telling people to do something isn't right. You have to explain to them. Make them see the reason behind it.

I also think that half the couples that have children do so without thought. It’s the automatic next step after marriage. Also, the idea of having children is so romantic and magical, I don’t think couples realize that having children isn’t like going on a vacation if you’re bored. Once they’re here, they’re yours to take care of for the next 18 years at least. You are responsible for them. You are responsible for their well being, the people they become. So do humanity a favour and don’t have children unless you really really want to be parents. There is nothing more cruel than having a child and then abandoning it- either metaphorically, or literally.

No one wants to steal your biological right to procreate.

We just care about the planet, ourselves, and most of all, the children- born and unborn.

Human conscience is rotting away day by day.

I don’t understand how some people can do the things they do and still have the strength to wake up every morning, and face themselves in the mirror…. or face the God they claim to believe in and pray to so religiously.

Too many things seem to have become more important than the plain and simple act of not causing harm to another, or protecting another from harm.

I really do want to know. Have the people who cause pain to another, or don’t do whatever it is they can do to prevent the pain and trauma of another, alienated themselves from their actions to an extent that it is possible for them to go on living, day after day, with the same body, mind, heart and spirit that were, not too long ago, responsible for causing that pain?

Breaking news: PM condemns act of terror!!

Anyone who watched Mr. Shivraj Patil address a bunch of press-walas after the bomb blasts at a mosque in Hyderabad on the 18th of May this year will understand what I am talking about.
There he was, appearing on national television to make a statement about an act of terrorism that killed a dozen people and wounded over 40, reading words off a bunch of sheets stapled together. He didn’t trust himself to say something extempore at a time like this. There was no emotion. No anger. Not a trace of genuine, heartfelt sorrow, regret or outrage- in intonation or content of speech. He spoke slowly, but not out of a desire for clarity. The pauses seemed like they were necessary- because he seemed confused about a few words that were written, and even fumbled a bit. I felt ashamed and sick.

“PM condemns act of terror”. I am sick of hearing this. It doesn’t help at all. Not only does it not help, it actually makes me angry to see the same words spewing forth from the mouths of the leaders of the country every time lives are lost to brutality and merciless murder of innocent persons. Rather than bursting forth as a powerful reaction to events that ought to shake the deepest hollows of one’s being because they chip away at the backbone of humanity and of the nation, they seem…obligatory.

Do I want to see Manmohan Singh and the rest of them pick up guns and burning torches marching the streets shouting anti terrorist slogans and swearing on their family members that they will find the culprits and shoot them at sight? Probably not. Probably not.

All I ask for is a genuine show of emotion, some indication that despite the fact that is has become a daily occurrence, we haven’t got used to it. They haven’t just got used to it. I understand that approaching crisis in a dispassionate manner that allows one to think objectively without getting drawn into the emotionality of it all is usually good. But only when there is some indication to suggest that its importance has been registered, and that one is choosing to appear unperturbed and in control.

Or maybe not. Maybe I do want to see a minister going red in the face with anger and grief over senseless violence and lost lives for once. Maybe even watch him struggle to hold back tears. He’ll come out looking stronger in my eyes than if he sits there and, his voice becoming a monotonous drawl, says things like- “The Government of India condemns acts of this kind.”

It makes me wonder if I would prefer that the ministers just shut up and don’t give a statement. At least one could then interpret it any way one wanted- Maybe they’re too shocked to say anything. Maybe they can’t find the words to communicate how they really feel.

Don’t journalists who go to their homes and offices looking for “statements” get tired of hearing the same thing? I won’t be surprised if they don’t even bother anymore and just call the PM’s PA and ask “Statement dena hai. Wo hi wala daal den kya phir se?”

At a time when the country looks to its leaders to offer some solace and comfort, the nation waits with bated breath for what the man has to say, we hear:

“PM condemns act of terror”.

Well, thank you very much for allaying our doubts. The country had actually expected otherwise.